چکیده فارسی: زن‌ستیزی پدیده‌ای ریشه‌دار در تاریخ بشری است که بازتابی آشکار در اندیشۀ ارسطو، فیلسوف برجستۀ یونان باستان یافته است. این پژوهش به بررسی نظام‌مند مبانی زن‌ستیزی در اندیشۀ ارسطو در حوزه‌های گوناگون علمی می‌پردازد و ریشه‌های آن را با درپیش‌گرفتن رویکردی تحلیلی - تاریخی در اساطیر یونانی و فرهنگ زمانۀ ارسطو جست‌وجو می‌کند. ارسطو از مفهوم متافیزیکی هیلومورفیزم برای تبیین نابرابری جنسیتی استفاده می‌کند و زن را به مثابه ماده در جایگاهی فروتر از مرد که صورت شمرده می‌شود، قرار می‌دهد. در آموزه‌های بیولوژیکی ارسطو، آفرینش زن معیوب و نقش او در تولیدمثل، منفعلانه دانسته می‌شود. به دلیل نقصان بیولوژیک، زنان در اجتماع نیز توانایی نقش‌آفرینی کمتری دارند و این انگاره مبانی سیاسی ارسطو دربارۀ زنان را شکل می‌دهد. در اخلاق ارسطویی نیز زنان به اوج کمالات اخلاقی نمی‌رسند و برخی از رذایل مختص به خود را دارند. دیدگاه‌های فلسفی در خلأ پدیدار نمی‌شوند. آرای ارسطو نیز از این قاعده مستثنا نیست. بررسی فرهنگ رایج در زمان ارسطو نشان می‌دهد استدلال‌های فلسفی او برای توجیه هنجارهای عصر خود ازجمله زن‌ستیزی بوده است. درخور توجه است که کاوش عمیق‌تر در لایه‌های زیرین فرهنگ زن‌ستیز دوران ارسطو ناشناخته باقی مانده است. این مطالعه به بررسی رابطۀ بین آموزه‌های زن‌ستیز ارسطویی در سطوح گوناگون دانش و ریشه‌های آنها در اسطوره‌های یونان باستان می‌پردازد که به عنوان بستر فرهنگی جامعۀ یونان عمل می‌کند.
Aristotle's Misogyny: Philosophizing or the Charm of Myth
English Abstract: This study adopts a historical-analytical approach to reexamine the roots and dimensions of misogyny in Aristotle's thought. It seeks to determine whether these discriminatory views stem purely from philosophical rational inquiry or are deeply rooted in the cultural and mythological structures of ancient Greece. In pursuing this inquiry, the author analyzes Aristotle's philosophical system across the domains of metaphysics, biology, politics, and ethics, drawing a close connection between his misogynistic doctrines and Greek mythology. Moreover, it argues that Aristotle’s misogyny is not merely the product of reason and philosophizing, but to a large extent reflects the cultural residues and mythological beliefs of his era. In the first section, the metaphysical foundations of Aristotle’s thought are examined. The concept of hylomorphism, or the composition of matter and form, constitutes the cornerstone of his philosophical system and apparently plays a key role in his gender-based value system. In his interpretation of reproduction and human nature, Aristotle associates matter with femininity and form with masculinity: the man is portrayed as active, productive, formative, and rational, while the woman is seen as passive, receptive, and deprived of form. In this analysis, the woman is considered a kind of “defective male,” positioned biologically and ontologically at a lower rank than the man. The author’s analysis reveals that this philosophical-gendered dichotomy is not neutral but rather influenced by a cultural-mythological belief that regards the man as the source of actuality and creativity, and the woman merely as a vessel for receiving it. The next section analyzes Aristotle’s biological views. His perspective on reproduction cast a shadow over Western scientific thought for more than two thousand years and even influenced ecclesiastical teachings. According to this view, the man is the source of the form and soul of the child, while the woman merely provides the formless matter. The male’s sperm is considered to carry the power of actuality and rationality; whereas the woman’s menstrual blood is seen as passive matter in the process of creation. Due to a lack of sufficient bodily heat, the woman is incapable of producing form, and thus a female offspring is considered the result of a natural failure in the process of generation. The author’s historical analysis indicates that these misogynistic notions align with myths such as the legend of Pandora, in which woman is portrayed as the cause of evil entering the human world. In the political domain, Aristotle speaks of a natural hierarchy in which the man, being more rational, holds the right to govern, while the woman, the child, and the slave—due to their deficiency in practical reason—must be under his authority. According to Aristotle, women lack the capacity for rational decision-making and, as a result, cannot participate in the public sphere or governance. He likens the relationship between husband and wife to that of master and slave. The author demonstrates that this hierarchical structure is not only embedded in Aristotle’s political theory but also reflected in his ethical analysis. In the field of ethics, Aristotle defines virtue as the ability to perform the specific function of any creatures. Since the particular function of the human being, in his view, is practical reasoning, human virtue is dependent on deliberation and rational decision-making. However, women, due to their inability to fully engage in practical reasoning, are considered incapable of attaining complete moral virtue. Moreover, Aristotle explicitly describes women weaker than men and more yielding than men in terms of self-control, attributing this weakness to a biological trait. Consequently, moral virtues in women are understood only in a limited sense and confined to subordinate roles within the household—not as citizens or rulers. Thus, Aristotle’s ethical system also results in a philosophical justification of the gender hierarchy of his time. In the next step, the author examines the role of mythology in ancient Greek culture, demonstrating that myths played a fundamental role in shaping the worldview of the Greeks, as well as their educational and social doctrines. Myths such as Hesiod’s Theogony, and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, nourished the collective culture of the Greek people. These myths portrayed male gods as active, creative, and sovereign, while female goddesses were depicted as passive, deceptive, and sources of evil. Particularly, the story of Aphrodite and Ares, which Aristotle directly references in his works, symbolizes female infidelity and lustfulness and has been employed to degrade the feminine gender. In analyzing Aristotle’s relationship with myth, the present study shows that although Aristotle sometimes appears to critique myths from a rational standpoint, he frequently draws upon them, affirms them, or frames his philosophical concepts within a mythological structure. His endorsement of the myth of Aphrodite and Ares, as well as his acceptance of the supremacy of male gods in explaining metaphysical realities, are among the pieces of evidence demonstrating this influence. Some scholars, including Mieheau, have shown that Aristotle believed in the historical and factual truth of certain myths. In the final section, the author explains that misogyny in Aristotle’s thought is not merely an epistemological or logical phenomenon, but rather a cultural and mythological one that has been philosophically covered. The profound similarities between Aristotle’s teachings and mythological themes found in written sources and his implicit references indicate that many of Aristotle’s seemingly philosophical claims were, in fact, rational justifications for the unequal social and cultural structures of his time. From this perspective, Aristotle’s philosophy concerning women, though seemingly logical, is at its core less the product of pure and impartial reasoning than a cultural construct interwoven with myth within the very fabric of his philosophy. The author concludes by emphasizing that this study represents a preliminary step toward identifying the relationship between myth and philosophy in Aristotle’s thought. It is hoped that the hypothesis of the influence of his philosophical thinking by mythological narratives will be further substantiated through future research. Moreover, this research approach can serve as a model for analyzing other areas of philosophy in relation to their cultural and mythological backgrounds.