English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aristotle’s interest in human nature ranges impressively over a large number of disciplines. In the last few years there has been an explosion of fresh research into this thinker’s representation of the human being; but above all it is the knowledge of different areas of Corpus aristotelicum —which for long was badly neglected— that has proved the most rewarding. Thus, some specialists have come to realize that Aristotle’s biological works are as interesting and important as his Politics , his Ethics or his Metaphysics for understanding his anthropological thought. The scope of the paper is these neglected areas of Corpus aristotelicum . Aristotle’s model, however, was not the only and decisive anthropological theory available at the end of the Classical Age. The author also discusses the historian and physician Ctesias —who had written a History of India one generation before, yet was very influential in Aristotelian times— as well as the Peripatetic philosopher Theophrastos.

Greek Anthropological Thought at the End of the Classical Age