It is my aim in this paper to show that the contemporary assimilation of essence to modality is fundamentally misguided and that, as a consequence, the corresponding conception of metaphysics should be given up. It is not my view that the modal account fails to capture anything which might reasonably be called a concept of essence. My point, rather, is that the notion of essence which is of central importance to the metaphysics of identity is not to be understood in (...) modal terms or even to be regarded as extensionally equivalent to a modal notion. The one notion is, if I am right, a highly refined version of the other; it is like a sieve which performs a similar function but with a much finer mesh. (shrink)

In this article I defend an account of Meteorology IV as providing a material-level causal account of the emergence of uniform materials with a wide range of dispositional properties not found at the level of the four elements—the emergence of material complexity. I then demonstrate that this causal account is used in the Generation of Animals and Parts of Animals as part of the explanation of the generation of the uniform parts (tissues) and of their role in providing nonuniform parts (...) (organs) with the dispositional properties needed to fulfill their functions. (shrink)

Whether aristotle wrote a work on mathematics as he did on physics is not known, and sources differ. this book attempts to present the main features of aristotle's philosophy of mathematics. methodologically, the presentation is based on aristotle's "posterior analytics", which discusses the nature of scientific knowledge and procedure. concerning aristotle's views on mathematics in particular, they are presented with the support of numerous references to his extant works. his criticism of his predecessors is added at the end.

Three claims about essential properties are frequently advanced in recent discussions: (1) a property belongs essentially to a thing only if that thing would cease to exist without that property, (2) an essential property is explanatory, And (3) an essential property is such that it must belong to everything to which it belongs. I argue that the "only if" in (1) cannot be changed to "if and only if" and (1) needs to be supplemented by (2), And that (2) is (...) an indispensable feature of aristotle's view of essential properties and that it casts doubt on (3), Although (2) is usually assumed to provide a reason for (3). (shrink)

In this paper I address an important question in Aristotle’s biology, What are the causal mechanisms behind the transmission of biological form? Aristotle’s answer to this question, I argue, is found in Generation of Animals Book 4 in connection with his investigation into the phenomenon of inheritance. There we are told that an organism’s reproductive material contains a set of "movements" which are derived from the various "potentials" of its nature (the internal principle of change that initiates and controls development). (...) These movements, I suggest, function as specialized vehicles for communicating the parts of the parent’s heritable form during the act of reproduction. After exploring the details of this mechanism, I then take up Aristotle’s theory of inheritance proper. At the heart of the theory are three general principles (or 'laws') that govern the interactions between the maternal and paternal movements, the outcome of which determines the pattern of inheritance for the offspring. Although this paper is primarily aimed at providing a detailed analysis of Aristotle’s account of inheritance, the results of that analysis have implications for other areas of Aristotle’s biology. One of the most interesting of these is the question of whether Aristotle’s biology is anti-evolutionary (as traditionally assumed) or whether (as I argue) it leaves room for a theory of evolution by natural selection, even if Aristotle himself never took that step. (shrink)

In his biological works Aristotle frequently applies the language of abnormality to those individual members of natural kinds which fail through various defects to live up to the standard of their kind. Aristotle extends this language of abnormality to natural kinds themselves, and will often speak of kinds as‘ deformed’ or ‘warped’.1 In the vast majority of his references to abnormal kinds,2 Aristotle represents them as defective only because they do not measure up to some standard of excellence, and not (...) because of any genuine distortion of their nature. In one category of cases the defective species belongs to a genus which demands a certain characteristic of its species, but which the defective species does not possess. The lobster, for example, belongs to a genus that possesses claws for prehension and for defence, and thus it too possesses claws. It is, however, ‘deformed’, because it does not use its claws in the natural way, but rather for locomotion. Such deformities as these may even conform to Aristotle′s teleology and promote the good of the defective species. The seal, for example, belongs to the genus, the viviparous terrestrial, which requires external ears of its members. The seal does not possess them, and consequently is ‘deformed’. Yet Aristotle also argues that the seal′s lack of external ears is an advantage, because of its aquatic life, and Nature acts ‘reasonably’ in depriving it of them. In another category of cases the abnormal kind is defective with respect to a broader standard of excellence that lies outside its genus. Testaceans, such as the snail, are ‘deformed’ because they move ‘contrary to nature’. They do not move like a footed animal, but as if they were footed animals whose legs have been cut off. This category of abnormality even takes in the whole of the animal kingdom, with the exception of man. For every animal is ‘dwarf-like’ in comparison with man, which is the best of animals, because the upper part of every animal′s body, in contrast with that of man′s, is larger than its lower part. (shrink)

This article argues for an interpretation of Aristotle’s biological account of familial resemblance that allows us to read Aristotle’s embryology as employing the same concept of “form” as he employs in his Metaphysics. The dominant view for the last several decades has been that in order to account for the phenomenon of inherited characteristics, Aristotle’s biology must appeal to a “sub-specific” form, one that includes all of the traits that parents pass on to their offspring. That view, however, is not (...) only inconsistent with Aristotle’s essentialist metaphysics, but it also renders the embryological theory internally inconsistent. The interpretation I offer avoids both inconsistencies, and better coheres with what he actually says in Generation of Animals. (shrink)

In this paper, I first of all define various kinds of ontological dependence, motivating these definitions by appeal to examples. My contention is that whenever we need, in metaphysics, to appeal to some notion of existential or identity-dependence, one or other of these definitions will serve our needs adequately, which one depending on the case in hand. Then I respond to some objections to one of these proposed definitions in particular, namely, my definition of (what I call) essential identity-dependence. Finally, (...) I show how a similar approach can be applied in the theory of truthmaking, by offering an account of the truthmaking relation which defines it in terms of a type of essential dependence. I also say why I think that this approach is preferable to one which treats the truthmaking relation as primitive. More generally, my view is that accounts of dependence or ‘grounding’ which treat these notions as primitive are less satisfactory than my own position, which is that in all cases a suitable definition is forthcoming if we look hard enough. (shrink)

There is a surprising number of deformed animal kinds mentioned in Aristotle’s biological works. The number is surprising because, according to the standard understanding of deformed animals in Aristotle, it should be zero. And the number is significant because there are just too many deformed kinds at too many classificatory levels mentioned in too many works to dismiss them as a minor aberration or as an infiltration of folk belief into biology proper. This paper has two goals. The first is (...) to develop an interpretation of deformed animal kinds in Aristotle, which focuses on the meaning of deformity applied to kinds. To my knowledge there is no adequate interpretation of the meaning of deformity applied to kinds in the scholarly literature. (shrink)