Geometrical premisses in Aristotle’s Incessu animalium and kind-crossing

Anais de Filosofia Clássica 24 (12):53-71 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
At some point in the Incessu Animalium, Aristotle appeals to some geometrical claims in order to explain why animal progression necessarily involves the bending (of the limbs), and this appeal to geometrical claims might be taking as violating the recommendation to avoid “kind-crossing” (as found in the Posterior Analytic). But a very unclear notion of kind-crossing has been assumed in most debates. I will argue that kind-crossing in the Posterior Analytics does not mean any employment of premises from a discipline other than that to which the explanandum belongs. Kind-crossing was meant to cover a specific sort of employment of premises from a different discipline, namely, the case in which premises from a discipline X are taken as the most important explanatory factor that delivers the fullest appropriate explanation of an explanandum within discipline Y. If this is so, the employment of geometrical premises in the Incessu Animalium is not an instance of the prohibited kind-crossing, but something that is in line with the theory of the Posterior Analytics.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-09-17
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #51,920 of 64,030 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #34,534 of 64,030 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.