La formule célèbre d’Aristote « la nature ne fait rien en vain », telle qu’elle est utilisée dans le traité sur la Locomotion des animaux, invite à reformuler le problème général du finalisme en zoologie et de la conformité à la nature. Bien que cette formule, en première approche, semble aller dans le sens d’une téléologie cosmique ou globale, elle conduit en fait à privilégier une téléologie relative, c’est-à-dire locale, qui opère à l’échelle des êtres vivants. Elle s’applique en effet, (...) non pas de manière absolue, mais relativement aux possibilités définies par la nature de l’espèce (propriétés spécifiques et génériques). Toutefois, elle n’exprime pas seulement le rapport à la finalité organique stricto sensu, mais aussi les conditions nécessaires externes du mouvement animal, conditions qui définissent, pour les espèces et les genres, un régime commun d’organisation. (shrink)

This argues for a reading of PA I.1, 639b11-640a9 as a continuous argument, which I divide into 3 main sections. Aristotle’s point in the first section is that teleological explanations should precede non-teleological explanations in the order of exposition. His reasoning is that the ends cited in teleological explanations are definitions, and definitions—which are not subject to further explanation—are appropriate starting points, insofar as they prevent explanations from going on ad infinitum. Moreover, I argue that Aristotle proceeds in the following (...) two sections to criticize certain non-teleological accounts offered by his predecessors on the grounds that they are explanatorily defective: I take Aristotle’s complaints to be that those accounts—unlike teleological explanations—neither begin from appropriate starting points nor entail the phenomena that they purport to explain. Along the way, I am defending an alternative way of understanding what "hypothetical necessity" refers to, for Aristotle. Comments are welcome! (shrink)

Exceptions are often cited as a counterargument against formal causation. Against this I argue that Aristotle explicitly allows for exceptions to essences in his biological writings, and that he has a means of explaining them through formal causation – though this means that he has to slightly elaborate on his general case theory from the Posterior Analytics, by supplementing it with a special case application in the biological writings. Specifically for Aristotle an essential predication need not be a universal predication. (...) Rather an essential predication is where a property belongs essentially to a species or genus. This essential predication serves a causal and explanatory role, and is not dependent on a corresponding universal predication. (shrink)

Historians and philosophers of science have interpreted the taxonomic theory of Carl Linnaeus as an ‘essentialist’, ‘Aristotelian’, or even ‘scholastic’ one. This interpretation is flatly contradicted by what Linnaeus himself had to say about taxonomy in Systema naturae , Fundamenta botanica and Genera plantarum . This paper straightens out some of the more basic misinterpretations by showing that: Linnaeus’s species concept took account of reproductive relations among organisms and was therefore not metaphysical, but biological; Linnaeus did not favour classification by (...) logical division, but criticized it for necessarily failing to represent what he called ‘natural’ genera; Linnaeus’s definitions of ‘natural’ genera and species were not essentialist, but descriptive and polytypic; Linnaeus’s method in establishing ‘natural’ definitions was not deductive, but consisted in an inductive, bottom-up procedure of comparing concrete specimens. The conclusion will discuss the fragmentary and provisional nature of Linnaeus’s ‘natural method’. I will argue in particular that Linnaeus opted for inductive strategies not on abstract epistemological grounds, but in order to confer stability and continuity to the explorative practices of contemporary natural history. (shrink)

I argue that Topics VI does not contain any serious theory about definitions, but only a collection of advices for formulating definitions in a dialectical context, namely, definitions aiming to catch what the opponent means. Topics VI is full of inconsistencies that can be explained away by this approach: the inconsistencies reflect "acceptable opinions about definitions" that distinct groups of interlocutors accept. I also argue that the "topoi" need not be pieces of serious theory Aristotle is commited to. The "topoi" (...) must also be considered as "endoxa", namely, as accepted opinions about how it is legitimate to draw an inference. (shrink)

Aristotle’s influence on D’Arcy Thompson was praised by Thompson himself and has been recognized by others in various respects, including the aesthetic and normative dimensions of biology, and the multicausal explanation of living forms. This article focuses on the relatedness of organic forms, one of the core problems addressed by both Aristotle’s History of Animals (HA), and the renowned chapter of Thompson’s On Growth and Form (G&F), “On the Theory of Transformations, or the Comparison of Related Forms.” We contend that, (...) far from being an incidental inspiration stemming from Thompson’s classicist background, his translation of HA played a pivotal role in developing his theory of transformations. Furthermore, we argue that Thompson’s interpretation of the Aristotelian method of comparison challenges the prevailing view of Aristotle as the founder of “typological essentialism,” and is a key episode in the revision of this narrative. Thompson understood that the method Aristotle used in HA to compare animal forms is better comprehended as a “method of transformations,” leading to a morphological arrangement of animal diversity, as opposed to a taxonomical classification. Finally, we examine how this approach to the relatedness of forms lay the foundation for a causal understanding of parts and their interconnections. Although Aristotle and Thompson emphasized distinct types of causes, we contend that they both differ in a fundamental sense from the one introduced by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which was formulated as a solution to the species problem rather than the form problem. We conclude that Thompson’s interpretation of Aristotle’s approach to form comparison has not only impacted contemporary scholarship on Aristotle’s biology, but revitalized a perspective that has regained significance due to the resurgence of the problem of form in evo-devo. (shrink)

My dissertation explores some issues of Aristotle’s philosophy, regarding the functionalist interpretation developed by Hilary Putnam and Martha C. Nussbaum as a valuable starting point. In Chapter One, I analyze some families of interpretations of Aristotle’s “psuchology” proposed in the second half of the 20th century in the context of the philosophy of mind. I show how some aspects of Aristotle’s thought, which are correctly grasped by the dualistic as well as by the physicalist interpretation, are later resumed and harmonized (...) by functionalism into a coherent doctrine. In Chapter Two it is worth to set out an analysis of Aristotle’s hylomorphism. I take into account homonymy, which is traditionally conceived as being in conflict with hylomorphism. I show not only how homonymy is rather a consequence of hylomorphism, but also how it allows to highlight that hylomorphism, if properly conceived, should be regarded as an ontological thesis with predicative consequences. In this regard, I suggest my own definition of hylomorphism. In Chapter Three, I take into account Aristotle’s final causation, comparing it with contemporary naturalism. I hold that teleology demonstrates Aristotle’s anti-reductionism and, in particular, the fact that he attributes causal efficacy to natural forms and ends. I criticize functionalism for having regarded Aristotle’s formal and final causes as being just explanatory, whereas, on the contrary, Aristotle conceives such explanatory character to derive from their genuine causal role. I formulate my own position, which I label as “logical compatibilism”. I hint at how the functional analysis of living organism may establish some points of contact between Aristotle’s and Darwin’s analysis. I recognize that functionalism correctly grasps the functional roles Aristotle attributes to matter and form and that it translates such an account in a valuable philosophical doctrine. Nevertheless, functionalism confines itself within the framework of contemporary philosophy of mind and fails to comprehend Aristotle’s anti-reductionist naturalism as regards biological life and nature in general. (shrink)

Part I. Aristotle proposed a method of defining an entity, e.g. an animal species, by successive subdivisions of the broader class ( genos) to which it belongs; if fully implemented, this would have resulted in a classification of animals. Definition of bird-species by subdivision of the class Birds would require the description of sub-classes intermediate between the major class and individual species. Examination of Aristotle's main discussions of birds shows that he had no complete system of such sub-classes, but four (...) groups of bird species are repeatedly mentioned and are described in some detail: Hook-taloned birds, terrestrial birds which fly weakly (i.e. Gallinaceous birds), web-footed birds, and fissipede waterside birds. Aristotle must have thought of these groups as, at least, likely to be usable in the definition of bird-species, but made little progress towards formulating such definitions. Part II. Pliny offers a hint of a different approach to avian classification; but in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Edward Wotton, Belon, Gesner and Aldrovandi were most strongly influenced by Aristotle, and so, to a much lesser extent, were Willughby and Ray. Linnaeus and Yarrell are examples of eighteenth and nineteenth century authors who still made use in their classifications of the four groups, of hook-taloned birds etc., described in Part 1. (shrink)

El artículo se centra en el procedimiento de la filosofía práctica de Aristóteles para establecer cuáles son los límites extremos del espacio ciudadano, destacando que lo que está afuera de esa demarcación es tanto o más decisivo para la ciudad que el entramado legal hallado en su interior. Se sostiene la siguiente tesis: la filosofía práctica de Aristóteles presenta a la ciudad como un entre irreductible fundado sobre dos polos o extremos difícilmente objetivables, a saber, su materia originaria y su (...) modelo ideal. Partiendo de aquí, defiendo que el modelo de coexistencia que ofrecen la amistad y su preámbulo, la benevolencia, funciona como un índice regulativo para orientar los esfuerzos que la ciudad dirige al cumplimiento de su propio érgon. (shrink)

Le champ de l’histoire naturelle, longtemps descriptif et classificatoire, connaît tout au long du xmf siècle, un ensemble de transformations dues au développement croissant d’un point de vue physiologique sur les êtres vivants. Si, dans un premier temps, les disciplines traditionnelles (botanique, zoologie) voient des aspects particuliers se développer en leur sein (physique végétale, anatomie et physiologie comparées), la question se pose peu à peu de l’émergence d’une sdence du vivant, dépassant le clivage traditionnel des trois règnes, consciente de l’unité (...) que représente le monde vivant par opposition au monde inorganique. L’apparition presque simultanée en Europe du terme biologie (Roze, Treviranus, Lamarck) ou de son substitut zoonomie (E. Darwin) ne constitue cependant qu’une naissance avortée, qui perturbe les classifications antérieures, sans aboutir immédiatement à la reconnaissance de la biologie comme discipline. L’objet de cet article est d’analyser les conditions conceptuelles qui permettent cette naissance, d’examiner les processus de redistribution des savoirs qu’elle entraîne et d’étudier les redéfinitions et les redécoupages qui s’opèrent dans les catégories utilisées dans les institutions académiques, les périodiques ou les dictionnaires. (shrink)

In a short work called De conceptione appended to the end of his Exercitationes de generatione animalium , William Harvey developed a rather strange analogy. To explain how such marvelous productions as living beings were generated from the rather inauspicious ingredients of animal reproduction, Harvey argued that conception in the womb was like conception in the brain. It was mostly rejected at the time; it now seems a ludicrous theory based upon homonymy. However, this analogy offers insight into the structure (...) and function of analogies in early modern natural philosophy. In this essay I hope to not only describe the complex nature of Harvey’s analogy, but also offer a novel interpretation of his use of analogical reasoning, substantially revising the account offered by Guido Giglioni . I discuss two points of conceptual change and negotiation in connection with Harvey’s analogy, understanding it as both a confrontation between the border of the natural and the supernatural, as well as a moment in the history of psychology. My interpretation touches upon a number of important aspects, including why the analogy was rejected, how Harvey systematically deployed analogies according to his notions of natural philosophical method, how the analogy fits into contemporary discussions of analogies in science, and finally, how the analogy must be seen in the context of changing Renaissance notions of the science of the soul, ultimately confronting the problem of how to understand final causality in Aristotelian science. In connection with the last, I conclude the essay by turning to how Harvey embeds the analogy within a natural theological cosmology. (shrink)