The Art of Rhetoric

The Art of Rhetoric Plot Summary

Introduction

How do we effectively persuade others in a world filled with competing messages and ideas? This question has challenged communicators since ancient times, yet remains vitally relevant in our contemporary landscape of political discourse, legal argumentation, and everyday persuasion. Aristotle's rhetorical framework provides a sophisticated answer by offering a comprehensive system for understanding and practicing the art of persuasion. Unlike approaches that view rhetoric as mere manipulation or stylistic flourish, Aristotle presents persuasion as a systematic art grounded in understanding human psychology, logical reasoning, and ethical communication. The framework addresses several fundamental questions: What are the primary modes through which humans are persuaded? How should arguments be structured differently across political, legal, and ceremonial contexts? What role do emotions play in shaping judgment, and how can they be ethically engaged? How should speakers adapt their approach to different audiences? By providing structured answers to these questions, Aristotle offers not just techniques but a coherent theory of human communication that balances logical rigor with psychological insight and ethical responsibility, creating a foundation for effective persuasion that respects both speaker and audience.

Chapter 1: The Three Pillars: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

At the heart of Aristotle's rhetorical framework lies the tripartite division of persuasive appeals: ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic). These three pillars represent distinct yet complementary approaches to influencing an audience's judgment and decision-making. Rather than viewing them as competing strategies, Aristotle understood them as essential components of comprehensive persuasion that addresses the full spectrum of human response. Ethos concerns the perceived character and credibility of the speaker. Aristotle recognized that audiences naturally trust individuals they perceive as knowledgeable, virtuous, and well-intentioned. This trust emerges not primarily from prior reputation but from the speech itself—through demonstrated expertise, balanced judgment, and apparent goodwill toward the audience. The speaker establishes ethos by showing practical wisdom (phronesis), moral virtue (arete), and genuine concern for the audience's interests (eunoia). When these qualities are effectively communicated, the audience becomes predisposed to accept the speaker's arguments. Politicians often emphasize their experience, integrity, and commitment to public service precisely to enhance this dimension of persuasion. Pathos involves engaging the audience's emotions to influence their judgment. Aristotle provided a sophisticated psychological analysis of emotions, viewing them not as irrational impulses but as cognitive responses tied to beliefs and judgments. Each emotion has a distinctive structure involving the state of mind that produces it, the object toward which it is directed, and the grounds for experiencing it. By understanding these structures, speakers can evoke appropriate emotional responses that align with their persuasive goals. A public health campaign might utilize fear to discourage dangerous behaviors, while a charity appeal might evoke compassion to encourage donations. Aristotle's approach to emotional persuasion respects the audience's rationality while acknowledging the legitimate role emotions play in human decision-making. Logos appeals to the audience's reason through structured arguments and evidence. This dimension employs enthymemes (rhetorical syllogisms) and examples (rhetorical inductions) to lead the audience to conclusions through logical pathways. Unlike formal logic, rhetorical reasoning operates in the realm of probability rather than certainty, addressing matters where absolute truth remains elusive. An attorney might use logos by presenting a timeline of events, expert testimony, and physical evidence to construct a compelling narrative of what occurred. Effective logos requires not just valid reasoning but also premises the audience already accepts or can be readily persuaded to accept. In practice, these three modes of persuasion operate synergistically rather than in isolation. A political speech might begin by establishing the speaker's credibility (ethos), present compelling evidence and reasoning (logos), and conclude with an emotional appeal to patriotism or hope (pathos). The proportions and sequence may vary depending on the context, audience, and purpose, but all three elements typically contribute to effective persuasion. Modern advertising campaigns carefully balance celebrity endorsements (ethos), product specifications (logos), and emotional storytelling (pathos), often unconsciously following Aristotle's ancient blueprint. The enduring relevance of this tripartite framework stems from its grounding in human psychology. People naturally evaluate messages based on the trustworthiness of the source, the quality of the reasoning, and their emotional response to the content. By understanding and consciously applying ethos, pathos, and logos, contemporary communicators can craft more compelling and effective messages across all domains of human interaction, from business presentations to political speeches, from marketing campaigns to interpersonal conversations.

Chapter 2: Deliberative Rhetoric: Persuasion in Political Discourse

Deliberative rhetoric, the first major genre in Aristotle's system, focuses on persuading audiences about future actions, particularly in political contexts where citizens must decide what policies will best serve the common good. Unlike other forms of rhetoric, deliberative oratory is forward-looking, concerned with what might or should happen rather than what has already occurred. Its primary aim is to demonstrate that a proposed course of action will lead to advantage or happiness for the community, or conversely, that a particular policy should be avoided because it will produce harm. The central concern of deliberative rhetoric is establishing expediency or advantage (sympheron). While other values like justice or honor may feature in deliberative speeches, they typically function as supporting elements rather than primary goals. The deliberative orator must demonstrate that a proposed action will lead to happiness, security, prosperity, or other beneficial outcomes for the audience. This requires a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes human happiness and its components—including virtue, wealth, friendship, good reputation, and physical well-being. For example, an argument for increased educational funding might demonstrate how it promotes virtue through character development, creates wealth through economic opportunity, and enhances the city's reputation through innovation—all contributing to collective happiness. Aristotle identifies five main topics that typically dominate deliberative oratory: finances (revenue generation and expenditure), war and peace (military strategy and diplomatic relations), national defense (protection of territory), imports and exports (economic policy), and legislation (legal frameworks). The effective deliberative speaker must possess detailed knowledge of these domains, including historical precedents, current resources, and potential future developments. This practical knowledge enables the speaker to offer concrete, feasible recommendations rather than abstract ideals. A contemporary parallel would be how effective policy debates on healthcare reform require understanding of medical systems, economics, and public health statistics rather than mere rhetorical skill. The deliberative orator must also understand the nature of the political constitution under which the audience operates. Different political systems—democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, or monarchy—embody different values and decision-making processes. The persuasive approach must align with the fundamental principles and objectives of the prevailing system. For instance, appeals to equality and majority benefit resonate in democracies, while appeals to wealth preservation and merit-based distribution prove more effective in oligarchies. This insight remains relevant in modern global politics, where persuasive strategies must adapt to diverse political cultures and values across different nations and communities. Deliberative rhetoric employs specific argumentative strategies suited to its future orientation. Examples (paradeigmata) feature prominently, as they allow the audience to envision potential outcomes based on historical parallels. The speaker might cite previous policy decisions and their consequences to support predictions about similar current proposals. Additionally, deliberative speeches often employ amplification techniques to emphasize the magnitude of potential benefits or harms. When arguing for environmental protection measures, a speaker might amplify the long-term consequences of inaction to motivate immediate response, or when advocating for economic investment, might emphasize the multiplier effects that will benefit future generations. The principles of deliberative rhetoric extend beyond formal political settings to any context involving collective decision-making about future actions. Corporate strategic planning, community organization meetings, and even family discussions about major decisions all employ deliberative rhetorical principles when weighing options and making plans. By understanding the structure of deliberative argument—defining advantage, demonstrating feasibility, comparing alternatives, and aligning with audience values—individuals can more effectively participate in the collaborative process of determining shared courses of action in any sphere of life.

Chapter 3: Forensic Rhetoric: The Art of Legal Argumentation

Forensic rhetoric, also known as judicial or legal oratory, focuses on past events and centers on questions of justice and injustice. Unlike deliberative rhetoric's future orientation, forensic oratory examines what has already occurred, reconstructing events and assigning responsibility. This form of rhetoric was particularly important in ancient Athens, where citizens served as jurors and professional legal representation was uncommon, making persuasive speech the primary tool for seeking justice. The foundation of forensic rhetoric lies in understanding the nature of injustice and its causes. Aristotle defines injustice as voluntary harm contrary to law, encompassing both written statutes specific to each community and unwritten universal principles. He meticulously analyzes why people commit unjust acts, identifying three primary motivations: vice (moral failings like greed or wrath), lack of self-control (yielding to temptation despite knowing better), and malice (deliberate harm). This psychological framework allows prosecutors to construct arguments about why the accused likely committed the crime, while defenders can refute these presumptions by demonstrating the absence of motive or opportunity. Modern criminal trials continue to focus on establishing means, motive, and opportunity, reflecting Aristotle's ancient insights into human behavior. Forensic argumentation requires mastery of both technical and non-technical proofs. Non-technical proofs include evidence not created by the orator but discovered, such as witness testimony, contracts, laws, and oaths. Technical proofs involve the speaker's skill in constructing arguments, particularly through enthymemes (rhetorical syllogisms) that connect established facts to probable conclusions about disputed matters. For example, if a defendant was seen fleeing the scene (established fact), the prosecutor might construct an enthymeme suggesting this behavior indicates guilt (probable conclusion), while the defender might offer an alternative explanation for the same behavior. This structured approach to evidence and argument anticipates modern rules of evidence and trial procedure. The structure of forensic proof follows a systematic pattern. Speakers must establish facts (what happened), define the nature of the act (how it should be classified), assess the harm caused (its magnitude), and determine responsibility (who should be held accountable). Aristotle provides detailed guidance on each element, including how to address disputed facts through probability arguments when direct evidence is lacking. For instance, if no witnesses saw a crime occur, a prosecutor might argue that the accused had the strongest motive and opportunity, making their guilt more probable than alternatives. These techniques remain evident in contemporary legal practice, where circumstantial evidence often plays a crucial role in establishing facts beyond reasonable doubt. Effective forensic rhetoric also requires understanding the relative severity of crimes. Aristotle outlines factors that make one injustice worse than another: larger harm, more deliberate planning, violation of multiple laws, targeting the vulnerable, betrayal of trust, difficulty of redress, and causing psychological trauma beyond physical harm. These considerations help prosecutors argue for appropriate punishment and defenders contextualize actions to mitigate culpability. Modern sentencing guidelines continue to reflect these principles, with factors like premeditation, vulnerability of victims, and breach of trust regularly considered as aggravating circumstances that warrant harsher penalties. The principles of forensic rhetoric extend beyond courtrooms to any situation requiring judgment about past actions—from corporate investigations to historical analysis to personal disputes. When a manager evaluates an employee's mistake, when historians assess the causes of a war, or when friends resolve a misunderstanding, they employ forensic rhetorical techniques to establish facts, interpret actions, assign responsibility, and determine appropriate responses. By understanding these principles, individuals can approach such situations with greater clarity and fairness, whether as judges, advocates, or participants in everyday conflicts that require resolution based on what has occurred.

Chapter 4: Epideictic Rhetoric: Ceremonial Praise and Blame

Epideictic rhetoric, the third major genre in Aristotle's system, concerns itself with praise and blame, typically delivered on ceremonial occasions. Unlike deliberative rhetoric (focused on future decisions) or forensic rhetoric (examining past justice), epideictic oratory addresses present values, celebrating virtue and condemning vice. This form of rhetoric shapes cultural ideals by amplifying what a society already values, reinforcing shared norms through public acknowledgment of exemplary individuals or actions. The central focus of epideictic rhetoric is establishing nobility (to kalon) or its opposite, baseness. The epideictic speaker demonstrates how a subject embodies—or fails to embody—socially valued virtues and qualities worthy of admiration. Aristotle identifies several key virtues that typically feature in laudatory speeches, including justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, wisdom, and prudence. Each virtue represents a capacity for beneficial action that contributes to individual excellence and social harmony. Modern award ceremonies, graduation speeches, and eulogies continue this tradition when they highlight how individuals embodied courage in crisis, wisdom in leadership, or generosity toward others. Epideictic rhetoric employs distinctive amplification techniques to elevate its subject. Speakers emphasize uniqueness ("first to accomplish"), difficulty ("despite obstacles"), timeliness ("when most needed"), voluntary choice ("not from necessity but nobility"), and consistent excellence ("throughout life, not merely once"). These techniques transform ordinary good deeds into extraordinary examples worthy of emulation. When a commencement speaker praises graduates for persevering through unprecedented challenges, or a memorial tribute highlights how a leader consistently chose principle over expediency, they employ these same amplification strategies Aristotle identified centuries ago. The structure of epideictic speeches follows natural chronological progression. Praise typically begins with a person's origin and upbringing, proceeds through education and early accomplishments, and culminates with mature achievements. This pattern allows the speaker to demonstrate how virtue developed and manifested consistently over time. Similarly, blame follows a pattern of showing how negative traits emerged and produced harmful consequences. This biographical approach remains evident in modern tributes, where speakers trace the development of character through formative experiences to explain later accomplishments. Epideictic rhetoric serves important social functions beyond mere ceremony. By publicly articulating and celebrating shared values, it strengthens community bonds and motivates virtuous behavior. When citizens see excellence rewarded with recognition, they become more likely to pursue similar excellence themselves. This explains why societies invest in public ceremonies honoring everything from military service to scientific discovery to athletic achievement. The epideictic tradition also provides resources for social critique—by praising alternative values or redefining what constitutes excellence, speakers can advocate for cultural change while working within established rhetorical forms. The principles of epideictic rhetoric extend into numerous contemporary contexts. Corporate recognition programs, sports hall of fame inductions, humanitarian awards, and even social media appreciation posts all draw on epideictic techniques to highlight admirable qualities and accomplishments. Political leaders employ epideictic elements when they commemorate historical events or honor national heroes to reinforce collective identity. By understanding the structure and purpose of praise and blame, individuals can more effectively recognize excellence, articulate values, and inspire others toward virtue in both formal ceremonies and everyday interactions that shape cultural ideals.

Chapter 5: The Psychology of Emotions in Persuasion

Aristotle's treatment of emotions in rhetoric represents one of the earliest and most sophisticated psychological analyses of human feeling and its relationship to persuasion. Unlike many philosophers who dismissed emotions as irrational impediments to judgment, Aristotle recognized them as essential components of human decision-making that could be systematically understood and ethically engaged. His framework for emotional appeals provides a nuanced approach that remains remarkably relevant to contemporary communication. Emotions, according to Aristotle, are not merely subjective feelings but cognitive states that involve judgments about the world. Each emotion arises from a specific perception of circumstances and leads to predictable changes in judgment. Anger, for instance, stems from a perceived slight that seems unjustified, creates a desire for revenge, and is accompanied by a certain pleasure in anticipating that revenge. This cognitive dimension means emotions can be engaged through rational discourse rather than mere manipulation. A speaker who understands the structure of anger can address its components—showing either that no slight occurred, that it was justified, or that revenge would be inappropriate—to transform the audience's emotional state through reasoned argument. Aristotle meticulously analyzes several key emotions relevant to persuasion: anger and calm, friendship and enmity, fear and confidence, shame, gratitude, pity, indignation, and envy. For each, he examines three crucial factors: the state of mind in which people experience the emotion, toward whom they typically direct it, and the situations that provoke it. This tripartite analysis provides speakers with a comprehensive understanding of emotional dynamics. For example, people feel pity toward those suffering undeserved misfortune, particularly when they can imagine themselves in similar circumstances. Armed with this knowledge, an advocate for humanitarian aid might emphasize both the innocence of victims and the universal vulnerability that connects them to the audience. The strategic use of emotional appeals requires adapting to specific audiences and contexts. Different emotions prove more effective in different rhetorical situations—fear might motivate preventative action in health campaigns, while indignation mobilizes support for social justice causes. Aristotle notes that emotions are also influenced by factors like age, fortune, and power relations, requiring speakers to tailor their approaches accordingly. Young audiences might respond more readily to appeals to ambition and hope, while older audiences might be moved by appeals to experience and caution. This contextual sensitivity distinguishes sophisticated emotional rhetoric from crude manipulation. Aristotle's approach to emotional appeals maintains ethical integrity by grounding emotions in truthful assessments of reality. He does not advocate creating false impressions to generate emotional responses but rather illuminating genuine aspects of situations that naturally evoke appropriate feelings. When a prosecutor describes the suffering of crime victims, when an environmental activist details the beauty of threatened ecosystems, or when a business leader shares a vision of future prosperity, they highlight real dimensions of experience that merit emotional engagement. This truth-oriented approach distinguishes Aristotelian emotional appeals from mere propaganda. The practical application of emotional understanding extends beyond formal oratory to all human interactions. Managers motivating teams, teachers inspiring students, parents guiding children, and friends resolving conflicts all benefit from understanding emotional dynamics. By recognizing how emotions arise from specific perceptions and judgments, individuals can address underlying beliefs rather than merely reacting to emotional expressions. This approach transforms potential emotional manipulation into genuine emotional intelligence—the ability to understand, respect, and constructively engage with both one's own emotions and those of others in service of better decisions and stronger relationships.

Chapter 6: Character and Audience Analysis

Aristotle's treatment of character (ethos) in rhetoric operates on two complementary levels: the character projected by the speaker and the character traits of the audience. Both dimensions require careful analysis and strategic adaptation for effective persuasion. This sophisticated approach to character portrayal and audience analysis remains one of Aristotle's most enduring contributions to persuasive communication. The speaker's ethos, as Aristotle emphasizes, must emerge from the speech itself rather than from prior reputation. Three qualities in particular enhance a speaker's persuasiveness: practical wisdom (phronesis), virtue (arete), and goodwill (eunoia). Practical wisdom demonstrates the speaker's capacity to make sound judgments about complex matters. Virtue establishes the speaker's moral integrity and commitment to shared values. Goodwill assures the audience that the speaker genuinely cares about their interests rather than pursuing a self-serving agenda. When these qualities are effectively communicated through the speech, the audience becomes naturally predisposed to accept the speaker's arguments. A political candidate who demonstrates detailed policy knowledge (wisdom), personal integrity (virtue), and genuine concern for constituents (goodwill) builds credibility that enhances all other persuasive efforts. Audience analysis forms the complementary dimension of Aristotle's character theory. He provides detailed observations about how age, social status, and fortune shape character traits and values. Young people, he notes, tend to be passionate, optimistic, and idealistic but lack practical experience. Those in middle age combine the energy of youth with the wisdom of experience. Elderly individuals often display caution, skepticism, and a preference for established patterns. By understanding these character tendencies, speakers can adapt their arguments and presentation style to resonate with specific audience segments. A financial advisor might emphasize security and tradition when addressing retirees but focus on growth potential and innovation when speaking to young professionals. Beyond age, Aristotle examines how social circumstances influence character development. Wealth often produces confidence, sometimes leading to arrogance or extravagance. Political power shapes how individuals perceive their responsibilities and entitlements. Family background and education establish foundational values and aspirations. By analyzing these factors, speakers can anticipate audience priorities, concerns, and predispositions, allowing for more targeted and effective persuasion. A marketing campaign for luxury goods might appeal to the desire for distinction among wealthy consumers, while a public health initiative might emphasize community responsibility to those in positions of influence. The practical application of character analysis involves adapting rhetorical strategies to audience characteristics. For youthful audiences, appeals to idealism, possibility, and novelty prove effective. Middle-aged audiences respond to balanced arguments that acknowledge complexity while offering practical solutions. Elderly audiences may require reassurance about tradition and stability. These adaptations should appear natural rather than manipulative, emerging from genuine understanding rather than stereotyping. Modern political campaigns demonstrate this principle when they craft different messages for different demographic groups, addressing the specific concerns and values of each segment. Aristotle's approach to character portrayal and audience analysis transcends mere technique, offering profound insights into human psychology and social dynamics. By recognizing how character shapes perception and judgment, he provides a framework for persuasion that respects audience diversity while seeking common ground. This nuanced understanding continues to inform fields ranging from political communication and marketing to education and leadership development. When a teacher adapts instruction to different learning styles, when a manager tailors feedback to individual team members, or when a public health campaign targets specific communities, they apply Aristotelian principles of audience analysis to enhance communication effectiveness.

Chapter 7: Style and Delivery in Effective Communication

Aristotle's treatment of style (lexis) and delivery (hypokrisis) completes his comprehensive rhetorical framework by addressing how arguments should be expressed and structured. While maintaining that substantive content remains primary, he recognizes that effective presentation significantly enhances persuasiveness. This balanced approach distinguishes his rhetorical theory from both purely logical systems and superficial stylistic techniques. The fundamental virtue of rhetorical style, according to Aristotle, is clarity (sapheneia). Language should communicate ideas precisely and intelligibly, avoiding both excessive simplicity and unnecessary complexity. This primary requirement reflects rhetoric's practical purpose—to facilitate understanding and judgment rather than to display verbal virtuosity. However, clarity alone proves insufficient for persuasive impact. Aristotle identifies additional stylistic virtues, including appropriateness to subject matter, audience, and occasion; linguistic correctness; and a controlled measure of distinction or vividness that captures attention without overwhelming the message. These principles remain evident in contemporary communication guides that emphasize the importance of clear, appropriate, and engaging expression tailored to specific contexts. Metaphor receives special attention in Aristotle's stylistic theory. He views metaphorical language not as mere ornament but as a cognitive tool that facilitates understanding by illuminating similarities between different domains. Effective metaphors create "learning and knowledge through the medium of the genus," allowing audiences to grasp unfamiliar or abstract concepts through familiar ones. The best metaphors establish proportional relationships—"the evening of life" effectively connects old age to evening through their similar position in the sequence of day and life. This cognitive dimension distinguishes Aristotle's approach from purely decorative conceptions of figurative language. Modern communicators continue to rely on metaphor to explain complex concepts, from describing immune systems as "armies fighting invaders" to characterizing economic relationships as "rising tides lifting all boats." Arrangement concerns the structural organization of rhetorical discourse. Aristotle identifies four main parts of a speech: introduction (prooimion), statement of facts (diegesis), proof (pistis), and conclusion (epilogos). Each section serves specific functions in the overall persuasive strategy. The introduction establishes credibility and prepares the audience for the argument. The narration presents relevant facts clearly and credibly. The proof section develops the central arguments through enthymemes and examples. The conclusion reinforces key points and evokes appropriate emotions. This structural framework continues to inform everything from legal arguments to business presentations to academic essays, providing a time-tested pattern for organizing persuasive communication. Delivery, though less extensively treated in the surviving text, receives acknowledgment as crucially important. Aristotle notes that the same speech delivered differently can produce entirely different effects, and he recognizes the power of voice modulation, timing, and appropriate emphasis. While he seems somewhat reluctant to elevate these performance aspects to the level of substantive content, he pragmatically acknowledges their practical necessity. This tension between substance and performance continues in contemporary communication, where presentation skills often determine which ideas gain traction regardless of their inherent merit. The proliferation of public speaking courses, voice coaching, and presentation training reflects the enduring recognition that delivery significantly impacts persuasiveness. Throughout his discussion of style and arrangement, Aristotle emphasizes the principle of propriety (to prepon)—the adaptation of expression to subject matter, audience, and occasion. Different rhetorical situations demand different stylistic approaches. A funeral oration requires different language and structure than a legal defense or policy recommendation. This contextual sensitivity reflects Aristotle's broader understanding of rhetoric as a flexible art that adapts to specific communicative challenges rather than following rigid formulas. Modern communicators similarly recognize that effective style varies across platforms and contexts—from the concise directness required in digital media to the more elaborate expression appropriate for ceremonial occasions.

Summary

Aristotle's rhetorical framework offers a comprehensive system for understanding and practicing the art of persuasion that balances logical rigor with psychological insight and ethical responsibility. At its core lies the recognition that effective persuasion engages the full spectrum of human response—addressing reason through logical argument (logos), establishing credibility through character presentation (ethos), and connecting with emotions through appropriate appeals (pathos). This integrated approach acknowledges that human decisions emerge from the complex interplay of rational assessment, trust judgments, and emotional responses, all of which can be ethically engaged through skilled communication. The enduring power of Aristotle's rhetorical theory lies in its profound understanding of human nature combined with practical guidance for diverse communicative contexts. Whether analyzing how political discourse should address future possibilities, how legal argumentation establishes past facts, or how ceremonial oratory celebrates shared values, Aristotle provides systematic principles that transcend their ancient origins to illuminate contemporary communication challenges. By offering a framework that respects both speaker and audience as rational beings while acknowledging the legitimate role of emotion and character in human judgment, Aristotle created not just a technique for persuasion but an ethical approach to communication that continues to guide those seeking to influence others through reasoned discourse rather than manipulation or coercion.

About Author

Loading...

Aristotle

Aristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.

Read more