WHAT DOES BEING AN “ARISTOTELIAN” REALLY MEAN?

The present paper presents two main arguments: 1) The meanings ofterms like “(neo-) Aristotelian” or “Aristotelianism” have become extremelyambiguous in the present literature of ethics and political philosophy. These termshave even become confusing rather than being descriptive or explanatory. Thefollowing questions seem to have no proper answers: Who is actually“Aristotelian,” or “neo-Aristotelian,” to what extent and for what reasons? Whatdoes “(neo-) Aristotelian” really mean? 2) In order to give some clues to properlyanswer these questions, as its second argument, the present paper attempts todefine the essential methodological characteristics of Aristotelian ethical/politicalexploration. To be called as an “Aristotelian,” a research should start from themethodological peculiarities of Aristotle’s practical philosophy that make aresearch “Aristotelian” rather than “Kantian” or “Hegelian.” In the second part ofthe paper, these peculiarities are defined as methodological prudence and medicaldialectics, which are characteristic aspects of Aristotelian way of inquiry regardingethics and political philosophy.