Tipton - Philosophical Biology in Aristotles Parts of Animals

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Jason A. Tipton 1

(1)

Abstract

What are we to do with the wealth of detailed information in the biological works of Aristotle? How easy is it to clearly distinguish between what some might describe as merely biological and the more philosophical, speculative discussions? Can the activity in which Aristotle is engaged be described as a philosophical biology? What would such an inquiry entail? This book aims to examine these questions through a detailed analysis of Aristotles Parts of Animals in conjunction with revisiting the detailed natural history observations made by Aristotle that inform, and in many ways penetrate, the philosophical argument.

In the scholarly works within the history and philosophy of biology, one does not often find data, illustrations or photographs of organisms. One can, say, certainly read the zoological works of Aristotle without reference to the parts or animate objects discussed in those writings. In the same way, one can read the Poetics without having read a particular tragedy under consideration. But I tend to want to have the biological phenomena in front of me when reading Aristotles Parts of Animals (HA) . For me, the phenomena add an element to the argument; perhaps I am convinced of Aristotles appeal to the Heraclitean idea that there are gods here too when exhorting his readers to look into what one might consider low and insignificant (645a5a35). Is there something divine about cephalopod mouths or fish tongues? While undoubtedly his exhortation is at least mildly hyperbolic, I am convinced by him to attempt to examine lowly organic forms in the hope that they help me better understand his thinking. DArcy Thompson, makes a more general claim when he suggests that Aristotle recognized the great problems of biology that are still ours to-day, problems of heredity, of sex, of nutrition and growth, of adaptation, of the struggle for existence, of the orderly sequence of Natures plan. Above all he was a student of Life itself. If he was a learned anatomist, a great student of the dead, still more was he a lover of the living. Evermore his world is in movement (Thompson 1913, p. 15).

In the introduction to his excellent commentary on the PA , James Lennox ( I aim to show that an interpretation of the PA can be both philosophical and scientific. The scientific aspects of the PA are one way into the philosophical aspects of the inquiry. Ultimately, I want to explore the possibility that what looks like parallel pathsone philosophical, one scientificcan be interwoven in a way that Aristotle seems to have intended.

The analysis of the philosophical argument of the PA will be enhanced by appealing to the actual organisms and traits that were of interest to Aristotle as a philosophical biologist. If one is suspicious about the veracity of certain of Aristotles observations, one might be suspicious of the philosophical argument. This might be what David Balme worries about when he claims:

In a similar vein, Lennoxs (). This book will attempt to hold together what might look like, at first glance, the two aspects of the PA : our understanding is enhanced by a detailed analysis of the organisms and traits that consumed Aristotle; it is in this that the outlines of a philosophical biology begin to emerge.

The bulk of Aristotles work in natural history was done in the North Aegean, centered around Mitylini on the north Aegean island of Lesvos (Thompson ). It is generally acknowledged that Aristotle traveled to Lesvos with Theophrastus, who was from Eressos, shortly after Platos death.

I have spent 2 years in Lesvos, the location of much of Aristotles work in natural history, familiarizing myself with the creatures that Aristotle had at his finger-tips. I have done this while trying to keep an eye on the philosophical discussion of the PA .

Again, what does handling such things or even inspecting illustrations of such phenomena add to our understanding of the argument? At the very least, a photograph or illustration can bring to life what it is Aristotle is talking about. More significantly, seeing the phenomenon might allow one to better understand why Aristotle makes a certain argument or interpretation.

For example, do readers of Aristotle have in mind organisms like sea-squirts (ascidians) or sea cucumbers (holuthurians) when trying to understand Aristotles argument regarding plant-like animals (Figs. )? It has been my own experience that I understand the terms of the philosophical argument in a richer way if I have the phenomena in front of me. The discussion of plant-like animals is important in Aristotle because of the question about the continuum between plant and animal life. Where does Aristotle draw the line? Plant-like animals bring this question into focus and demonstrate the indeterminacy of any potential solution to the division.