Aristotle

Aristotle stands as one of the foundational presences in the depth-psychology corpus, appearing not as a static authority but as a living theoretical resource whose doctrines on soul, desire, imagination, and emotion are continually interrogated, appropriated, and contested. The corpus engages Aristotle along several distinct axes. First, his hylomorphic psychology — the soul as the form of a living body — is treated as a bold and genuinely scientific intervention that refuses both Platonic dualism and crude materialism, opening philosophical space for a naturalistic account of animate life that modern psychologists have found generative. Second, his accounts of desire (orexis), phantasia, and the mechanics of motivation attract sustained attention from scholars of Stoicism and Greek ethics, who read Aristotle as establishing the structural dualism between rational and animal selfhood that Stoic philosophy would later attempt to dissolve. Third, his analyses of the emotions — anger, pity, shame, fear — as presented in the Rhetoric and Nicomachean Ethics provide the primary ancient taxonomy against which later moral-psychological literature defines itself. Finally, Nussbaum’s engagement positions Aristotle as the philosopher who rehabilitates human vulnerability and the phenomenological appearances (phainomena) against Platonic transcendence. The tensions that animate these readings — between form and matter, reason and appetite, scientific rigor and moral anthropocentrism — make Aristotle indispensable to any depth-psychological reckoning with the ancient world.

In the library

Aristotle’s theory of animation amounts to the claim that particular living things, like all particular items, can… be analysed into their Form and their Matter, but that in the exceptional case of living things their Form can be identified with the traditional concept of their soul.

This passage articulates Aristotle’s hylomorphic psychology — the soul as form of a living body — as the defining and boldest structural claim of the De Anima, establishing the framework within which all subsequent depth-psychological reading of Aristotle operates.

Aristotle, De Anima (On the Soul), -350thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle’s extremely valuable remarks on what he is trying to talk about have often been ignored in favour of the attempt to extract from his words some answer to questions arising out of quite different debates to which his line of inquiry is in fact only tangentially relevant.

The passage defends Aristotle’s theory of soul as a distinctively scientific and biological inquiry, warning against the misappropriation of his psychology into debates about immortality or post-Cartesian consciousness — a methodological caution central to any responsible reading of his work.

Aristotle, De Anima (On the Soul), -350thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The move which Aristotle made in adapting this primary model to the case of human beings was to posit a separate power in the souls of men, reason. This power can function alone as both the desiderative element and as the informational element in the actions of highly rational and virtuous agents.

Inwood identifies Aristotle’s positing of reason as a distinct psychic power as the pivotal theoretical innovation that structures the Stoic debate about human and animal action, locating Aristotle at the origin of the rational/appetitive dualism that ancient moral psychology inherits.

Brad Inwood, Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism, 1985thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle promises a return from the search for external justification to an internality that is deeply rooted in Greek tradition… He insists that he will find his truth inside what we say, see, and believe, rather than ‘far from the beaten path of human beings’.

Nussbaum constructs Aristotle’s philosophical method as a deliberate and principled anthropocentrism — a defense of the appearances (phainomena) against Platonic transcendence — making him the philosopher of human vulnerability and moral immanence.

Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, 1986thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle gave a strong impetus to the idea of will as a desire, so distinct from reason, but none the less belonging with reason as rational. In two passages Aristotle treats boulēsis as belonging to the rational part of the Platonist soul.

Sorabji positions Aristotle as the architect of a rational desire (boulēsis) that is irreducible to either pure reason or mere appetite, thereby inaugurating the concept of will as a psychological category distinct from both Platonic faculty-psychology and later Christian voluntarism.

Richard Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, 2000thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

‘Affections suitably prepare the organic parts, desire [orexis] [sc. suitably prepares] affections, phantasia [sc. suitably prepares] desire; and phantasia arises through thought or through perception’ (De Motu Animalium 8, 702a 17–19).

Lorenz foregrounds Aristotle’s causal chain linking phantasia, desire, and locomotion as the structural core of his motivational psychology, establishing phantasia as the intermediary between cognition and appetitive movement.

Hendrik Lorenz, The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle, 2006thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

If the parallel is pushed to the limit, there seems no reason why, if we do not learn medicine in order to become healthy, we should learn ‘ethics-politics’… in order to attain to psychological health and excellence, and hence to eudaimonia. Plato could accept this conclusion; Aristotle rejects it.

Adkins locates Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s somatic-psychological analogy as the pivot of his account of moral responsibility, insisting that intention and rational deliberation — not mere correct habit — are constitutive of eudaimonia.

Arthur W.H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values, 1960thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle says that dreams are caused by echoes of emotionally charged sense perceptions from our daily lives. When we go to sleep, the external objects that we perceive while awake leave the range of our senses; however, there are still impressions from those objects echoing within us.

Bulkeley presents Aristotle’s theory of dreaming as an empirically grounded account of internal perceptual residues, positioning him as an early naturalistic precursor to psychological theories of the dream as emotionally charged internal echo.

Bulkeley, Kelly, An Introduction to the Psychology of Dreaming, 2017supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle stipulates, as we have seen, that pity is elicited by an undeserved evil of the sort that ‘one might expect oneself, or one of one’s own, to suffer.’ Because we must be able to anticipate the possibility of experiencing a misfortune like that afflicting the pitied, pity requires that we ourselves be vulnerable.

Konstan analyzes Aristotle’s definition of pity in the Rhetoric as fundamentally rooted in the perceiver’s own vulnerability, making shared human fragility — not mere benevolence — the psychological condition for the emotion.

David Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, 2006supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle explains, the slight lies precisely in that the offender seeks no personal advantage. The only explanation for such a gratuitous hindrance of another’s wishes, according to Aristotle, is that one neither fears him nor seeks his friendship; he is thus useless, neither for good or ill.

Konstan reconstructs Aristotle’s tripartite taxonomy of slight (oligōria) in the Rhetoric, showing that anger in Aristotle’s system is a precisely calibrated response to deliberate belittlement rather than to harm as such.

David Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, 2006supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It is aiskhune, not aidos, that Aristotle chooses to analyse in the Rhetoric, his most extensive and penetrating discussion of the emotions. True, Aristotle at times lists aidos among the pathē.

Konstan draws on Aristotle’s Rhetoric to argue that the distinction between aiskhune and aidos is diagnostically significant for ancient emotion-theory, with Aristotle’s preference for aiskhune as the object of formal analysis revealing his understanding of shame as a socially structured cognitive-affective state.

David Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, 2006supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle’s theory of catharsis is, of course, a reply. Tragedy does good because it effects catharsis of such emotions. And which emotions? If he is to answer Plato, he will need to combine grief with pity.

Sorabji situates Aristotle’s doctrine of catharsis in the Poetics as a direct philosophical rebuttal to Plato’s condemnation of tragic poetry, arguing that catharsis therapeutically moderates rather than dangerously inflames the passions of pity and grief.

Richard Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, 2000supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It was almost certainly they who added to the concepts of the active and passive intellects the notions of the mind in potentiality and the mind in actuality, which were destined to prove the foundation of an impressive scholastic edifice.

The passage traces the post-Aristotelian elaboration of the active/passive intellect distinction through Theophrastus, documenting how later commentators formalized and radicalized the concepts latent in Aristotle’s own De Anima.

Aristotle, De Anima (On the Soul), -350supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Brentano is being similarly high-handed in his treatment of the third ground that he adduces for seeing Aristotle as a precursor of his own view… Aristotle stresses that while in actuality the sense-object exists in the subject, it exists in potentiality outside in the world.

This passage critically examines Brentano’s appropriation of Aristotle’s theory of intentionality, arguing that the Aristotelian doctrine of sense-reception resists assimilation to post-Cartesian theories of immanent mental content.

Aristotle, De Anima (On the Soul), -350supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

There is no organ of thought (De Anima 3.4, 429a 24–7), and no change of any sort stands to the activity of thought as matter to form. Thought, on Aristotle’s view, is a strictly immaterial activity.

Lorenz contrasts Aristotle’s doctrine of the immaterial intellect with his treatment of phantasia as tied to the perceptual-bodily apparatus, foregrounding an unresolved tension in Aristotelian psychology between the materiality of imagination and the strict immateriality of noetic activity.

Hendrik Lorenz, The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle, 2006supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It is evident from the rest of the Ethics and Politics that Aristotle’s views as a whole prevent dikaiosune from assuming this position. It is significant that in the Eudemian Ethics Aristotle maintains that kalokagathia is ‘perfect arete’.

Adkins uses Aristotle’s treatment of dikaiosune and kalokagathia across the ethical corpus to demonstrate the persistent tension between civic virtue and aristocratic excellence in Aristotle’s moral-psychological framework.

Arthur W.H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values, 1960supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Bios in Aristotle always means a total way or mode of life. See J. M. Cooper, Reason and Human Good in Aristotle… ‘The superiority of activities over states - e.g. virtue - is a commonplace in Aristotle’s philosophy and so widely attested that we hardly need to document it.’

Nussbaum clarifies the Aristotelian concept of bios as a structured totality of living rather than a series of discrete events, a reading that anchors her broader argument about the moral significance of temporal narrative in Aristotle’s ethics.

Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, 1986supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Of the reflex motions he says that the animal’s own thought or phantasia of the object does enter into the explanation of what happens; but there is lacking any orexis to perform the action.

Nussbaum traces Aristotle’s distinctions among voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary movements in De Motu Animalium, showing that the presence or absence of orexis and phantasia determines the full causal structure of animal action in his system.

Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, 1986supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The Aristotelian method does not provide for the situation in which there is a deep-rooted disagreement as to who is the expert and what procedures make for expertise.

Nussbaum identifies a structural limitation in Aristotle’s phenomenological method: its dependence on shared appearances renders it unable to adjudicate between radically competing frameworks for expertise, a gap with consequences for his moral epistemology.

Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, 1986aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Aristotle explains, in his own way — that is, from a rationalist point of view — the phenomenon of the arrest or abolition of time at the oracle of Sardes, when the consultants stretch themselves out to sleep next to the tombs of the heroes.

Vernant cites Aristotle’s rationalist interpretation of oracular sleep-incubation practices as an index of the philosopher’s consistent tendency to naturalize mythic and religious phenomena within a scientific framework.

Vernant, Jean-Pierre, Myth and Thought Among the Greeks, 1983aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It indicates the minimal condition for voluntary action, and does not by itself show that the action is also a fully responsible action in Aristotle’s sense.

Inwood clarifies the distinction between kath’ hormēn movement — the minimal animal condition for voluntary action — and full moral responsibility as Aristotle conceives it, establishing a gradient of agency that Stoic thinkers subsequently inherit and revise.

Brad Inwood, Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism, 1985aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Related terms