The paper is a contribution to a discussion on a report of Alexander Sanzhenakov who proposes an original interpretation of relations between Aristotle’s ethics (praxis) and his metaphysics (theory). Hereby the rigid traditional distinction of the theoretical and practi-cal disciplines of Aristotle’s philosophy is being challenged. The interpretation presented by Alexander Sanzhenakov, that is the consideration of the ethics (as well as the other practical sciences) of Aristotle should not be detached from the context of his metaphysics, is accepted in general terms in the following paper. This point of view being not very popu-lar deserves attention because it seems consistent with the principal theses of Aristotle’s philosophy and can hold ground: the subject of ethics is human praxis and act in function of the final end (telos) which directs us to Aristotle’s teleology with its questions about the end (finality), the essence, the nature, the being, whereas the praxis and act presuppose an acting human being that is makes it necessary to take into consideration the identity of the human nature and the problems of its actualization and its description. Alexander Sanzhenakov distinguishes two approaches which he calls essentialist and energetic. These approaches being scrutinized do not seem to have different foundations. Supporting the main objective of the author of the report submitted to discussion we cannot agree with this distinction. Some argument is being put forward.