> Aristotle is widely billed as one of the greatest philosophers of all
> times.  Not being an expert on the matter, I wonder whether this is
> justified.  The impression that I get time and again is that while he
> wrote on a wide gamut of subjects, from biology to ethics to the
> theory of poetry, he was often far off the mark.  Some examples:
> * theatre:  a proper play should take place in only one location, and
> cover a time frame of 24 hours max
> * ethics:  only male adult Greeks (no women, no dagos) are capable of
> behaving ethically or morally
> * biology:  species do not change over time; life is created from
> matter through some life force
> * astronomy:  earth is the center of the universe, which revolves
> around it
> * physics:  there are four-five elements, namely fire, earth, water,
> air (and aether)
> Aristotle reminds me of one of these people who have a well-formed and
> immutable but utterly erroneous opinion on everything.  Personally,
> I've come to think of him as one of the great brakemen of science.  In
> addition, most of his writings were notes on his lectures rather than
> proper books, which further diminishes his validity.
> So what do you think?  What have I overlooked?  What makes Aristotle a
> great philosopher in your book?
> Thanks.