L’objectif de cette étude est de reconstituer l’explication épicurienne des phénomènes d’attraction (ὁλκή). On cherche notamment à vérifier la fiabilité du témoignage de Galien qui attribue à Épicure une théorie de l’aimantation très différente de celle qui nous a été transmise par Lucrèce dans son De rerum natura. En examinant de près la théorie exposée par Galien, je cherche à montrer que, telle qu’elle est présentée, elle n’arrive pas, d’un point de vue strictement épicurien, à rendre compte du mouvement attractif. (...) J’envisage donc deux hypothèses. Ou bien Épicure est l’auteur de la théorie transmise par Galien et, dans un deuxième moment, l’aurait mise de côté au profit d’une théorie plus solide et efficace (celle de Lucrèce), ou bien la théorie en question est une version très remaniée de la véritable théorie d’Épicure, fruit d’une réinterprétation assez libre de Galien. La deuxième possibilité me paraît être plus probable, étant donné le contexte très polémique dans lequel ce témoignage se trouve. (shrink)

L’objectif de cette étude est d’examiner l’hypothèse selon laquelle la quarta natura, théorisée par Épicure pour rendre compte des activités de l’âme et décrite par Lucrèce (DRN III, 237-244), résulte de l’appropriation par Épicure d’un argument aristotélicien afin de répondre aux critiques d’Aristote à l’égard de la théorie démocritéenne de l’âme. Pour ce faire, on analysera le témoignage de Cicéron (Tusc. I, 10, 22) sur le quintum genus attribué à Aristote et on rendra compte des débats sur ses sources possibles. (...) En confrontant le témoignage cicéronien avec les vers dans lesquels Lucrèce expose la théorie de la quatrième nature, on montrera les fortes ressemblances entre leurs structures argumentatives. Sur la base de la possible datation de la théorie de la quintessence et de son attribution au Péripatos du iie siècle av. J-C, on proposera d’expliquer cette similarité par l’appropriation par Lucrèce de l’argument par soustraction qui caractérise la théorie de la quintessence, à partir de laquelle il aurait conçu la théorie de la quatrième nature. Afin de vérifier l’exactitude de cette interprétation, on examinera l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’appropriation de cet argument, et donc la conception de la quatrième nature, remontent à Épicure, la paternité de l’argument par soustraction (à partir duquel les péripatéticiens postérieurs pourraient avoir conçu la théorie de la quintessence) étant alors à attribuer à Aristote. Pour ce faire, on analysera un passage du De Caelo (269a30-269b2) et un passage de La Génération des animaux (736b29-737a1) où l’argument par soustraction sert à introduire d’une part l’éther et d’autre par le pneuma. Ensuite, en s’appuyant sur l’analyse d’un passage du De Anima (405a5-7), on montrera que l’appropriation de cet argument pourrait s’expliquer par la tentative, de la part d’Épicure, de répondre à une critique aristotélicienne concernant la théorie démocritéenne de l’âme. (shrink)

Argues that the demarcation between humans and animals in Stoicism is made in functional terms, by their different capacities, but also quantitative terms, as smaller or larger shares of pneuma and thus the active principle Gods. Discusses how they Stoics may have related these two categories and makes a case for the possibility to formulate a non-exploitative animal ethic in Stoic terms.

The "tree of life" iconography, representing the history of life, dates from at least the latter half of the 18th century, but evolution as the mechanism providing this bifurcating history of life did not appear until the early 19th century. There was also a shift from the straight line, scala naturae view of change in nature to a more bifurcating or tree-like view. Throughout the 19th century authors presented tree-like diagrams, some regarding the Deity as the mechanism of (...) change while others argued for evolution. Straight-line or anagenetic evolution and bifurcating or cladogenetic evolution are known in biology today, but are often misrepresented in popular culture, especially with anagenesis being confounded with scala naturae. Although well known in the mid 19th century, the geologist Edward Hitchcock has been forgotten as an early, if not the first author to publish a paleontologically based "tree of life" beginning in 1840 in the first edition of his popular general geology text Elementary Geology. At least 31 editions were published and those between 1840 and 1859 had this "paleontological chart" showing two trees, one for fossil and living plants and another for animals set within a context of geological time. Although the chart did not vary in later editions, the text explaining the chart did change to reflect newer ideas in paleontology and geology. Whereas Lamarck, Chambers, Bronn, Darwin, and Haeckel saw some form of transmutation as the mechanism that created their "trees of life," Hitchcock, like his contemporaries Agassiz and Miller, who also produced "trees of life," saw a deity as the agent of change. Through each edition of his book Hitchcock denounced the newer transmutationist hypotheses of Lamarck, then Chambers, and finally Darwin in an 1860 edition that no longer presented his tree-like "paleontological chart.". (shrink)

Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections despite their considerable cognitive, behavioral, and evolutionary diversity. Some ethical and policy inroads have been made for cephalopod molluscs and crustaceans, but the vast majority of arthropods, including the insects, remain excluded from moral consideration. We argue that this exclusion is unwarranted given the existing evidence. Anachronistic readings of evolution, which view invertebrates as lower in the scala naturae, continue to influence public policy and common (...) morality. The assumption that small brains are unlikely to support cognition or sentience likewise persists, despite growing evidence that arthropods have converged on cognitive functions comparable to those found in vertebrates. The exclusion of invertebrates is also motivated by cognitive-affective biases that covertly influence moral judgment, as well as a flawed balancing of scientific uncertainty against moral risk. All these factors shape moral attitudes toward basal vertebrates too, but they are particularly acute in the arthropod context. Moral consistency dictates that the same standards of evidence and risk management that justify policy protections for vertebrates also support extending moral consideration to certain invertebrates. Moving beyond a vertebrate-centered conception of welfare can also clarify foundational moral concepts in their own right. (shrink)

The history of biological systematics documents a continuing tension between classifications in terms of nested hierarchies congruent with branching diagrams (the ‘Tree of Life’) versus reticulated relations. The recognition of conflicting character distribution led to the dissolution of the scala naturae into reticulated systems, which were then transformed into phylogenetic trees by the addition of a vertical axis. The cladistic revolution in systematics resulted in a representation of phylogeny as a strictly bifurcating pattern (cladogram). Due to the ubiquity (...) of character conflict—at the genetic or morphological level, or at any level in between—some characters will necessarily have to be discarded ( qua noise) in favor of others in support of a strictly bifurcating phylogenetic tree. Pattern analysts will seek maximal congruence in the distribution of characters (ultimately of any kind) relative to a branching tree-topology; process explainers will call such tree-topologies into question by reference to incompatible evolutionary processes. Pattern analysts will argue that process explanations must not be brought to bear on pattern reconstruction; process explainers will insist that the reconstructed pattern requires a process explanation to become scientifically relevant, i.e., relevant to evolutionary theory. The core question driving the current debate about the adequacy of the ‘Tree of Life’ metaphor seems to be whether the systematic dichotomization of the living world is an adequate representation of the complex evolutionary history of global biodiversity. In ‘Questioning the Tree of Life’, it seems beneficial to draw at least four conceptual distinctions: pattern reconstruction versus process explanation as different epistemological approaches to the study of phylogeny; open versus closed systems as expressions of different kinds of population (species) structures; phylogenetic trees versus cladograms as representations of evolutionary processes versus patterns of relationships; and genes versus species as expressions of different levels of causal integration and evolutionary transformation. (shrink)

Biosemiotics is the synthesis of biology and semiotics, and its main purpose is to show that semiosis is a fundamental component of life, i.e., that signs and meaning exist in all living systems. This idea started circulating in the 1960s and was proposed independently from enquires taking place at both ends of the Scala Naturae. At the molecular end it was expressed by Howard Pattee’s analysis of the genetic code, whereas at the human end it took the form (...) of Thomas Sebeok’s investigation into the biological roots of culture. Other proposals appeared in the years that followed and gave origin to different theoretical frameworks, or different schools, of biosemiotics. They are: (1) the physical biosemiotics of Howard Pattee and its extension in Darwinian biosemiotics by Howard Pattee and by Terrence Deacon, (2) the zoosemiotics proposed by Thomas Sebeok and its extension in sign biosemiotics developed by Thomas Sebeok and by Jesper Hoffmeyer, (3) the code biosemiotics of Marcello Barbieri and (4) the hermeneutic biosemiotics of Anton Markoš. The differences that exist between the schools are a consequence of their different models of semiosis, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In reality they go much deeper and concern the very nature of the new discipline. Is biosemiotics only a new way of looking at the known facts of biology or does it predict new facts? Does biosemiotics consist of testable hypotheses? Does it add anything to the history of life and to our understanding of evolution? These are the major issues of the young discipline, and the purpose of the present paper is to illustrate them by describing the origin and the historical development of its main schools. (shrink)

I commend Mikhalevich & Powell for extending the discussion of cognition and its relation to moral status with their well researched and argued target article on invertebrate cognition. I have two small criticisms: that the scala naturae still retains its appeal to some in biology as well as psychology, and that drawing the line at invertebrates requires a bit more defense given the larger comparative cognitive-scientific context.

At the end of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Edinger completed the first comparative survey of the microscopic anatomy of vertebrate brains. He is regarded as the founder of the field of comparative neuroanatomy. Modern commentators have misunderstood him to have espoused an anti-Darwinian linear view of brain evolution, harkening to the metaphysics of the scala naturae. This understanding arises, in part, from an increasingly contested view of nineteenth-century morphology in Germany. Edinger did espouse a progressionist, though not strictly (...) linear, view of forebrain evolution, but his work also provided carefully documented evidence that brain stem structures vary in complexity independently from one another and across species in a manner that is not compatible with linear progress. This led Edinger to reject progressionism for all brain structures other than the forebrain roof, based on reasoning not too dissimilar from those his successors used to dismiss it for the forebrain roof. (shrink)

The "tree of life" iconography, representing the history of life, dates from at least the latter half of the 18th century, but evolution as the mechanism providing this bifurcating history of life did not appear until the early 19th century. There was also a shift from the straight line, scala naturae view of change in nature to a more bifurcating or tree-like view. Throughout the 19th century authors presented tree-like diagrams, some regarding the Deity as the mechanism of (...) change while others argued for evolution. Straight-line or anagenetic evolution and bifurcating or cladogenetic evolution are known in biology today, but are often misrepresented in popular culture, especially with anagenesis being confounded with scala naturae. Although well known in the mid 19th century, the geologist Edward Hitchcock has been forgotten as an early, if not the first author to publish a paleontologically based "tree of life" beginning in 1840 in the first edition of his popular general geology text Elementary Geology. At least 31 editions were published and those between 1840 and 1859 had this "paleontological chart" showing two trees, one for fossil and living plants and another for animals set within a context of geological time. Although the chart did not vary in later editions, the text explaining the chart did change to reflect newer ideas in paleontology and geology. Whereas Lamarck, Chambers, Bronn, Darwin, and Haeckel saw some form of transmutation as the mechanism that created their "trees of life," Hitchcock, like his contemporaries Agassiz and Miller, who also produced "trees of life," saw a deity as the agent of change. Through each edition of his book Hitchcock denounced the newer transmutationist hypotheses of Lamarck, then Chambers, and finally Darwin in an 1860 edition that no longer presented his tree-like "paleontological chart.". (shrink)

Insight is a cognitive feature that is usually regarded as being generated by the neocortex and being present only in humans and possibly some closely related primates. In this essay we show that especially corvids display behavioral skills within the domains of object permanence, episodic memory, theory of mind, and tool use/causal reasoning that are insightful. These similarities between humans and corvids at the behavioral level are probably the result of a convergent evolution. Similarly, the telencephalic structures involved in higher (...) cognitive functions in both species show a high degree of similarity, although the forebrain of birds has no cortex-like lamination. The neural substrate for insight-related cognitive functions in mammals and birds is thus not necessarily based on a laminated cortical structure but can be generated by differently organized forebrains. Hence, neither is insight restricted to mammals, as predicted from a “scala naturae”, nor is the laminated cortex a prerequisite for the highest cognitive functions. (shrink)

Il pensiero di Hans Jonas, specie per quel che riguarda la cosiddetta “biologia filosofica”, tratta indirettamente del rapporto tra essere umano e animale. A questo riguardo, Jonas rifiuta sia l’approccio dualistico, sia quello monistico-riduzionistico e propende al contrario per una complessiva reinterpretazione del fenomeno della vita nei termini di quel che egli definisce una “rivoluzione ontologica”. In virtù di ciò, il pensatore rintraccia lo specifico del fenomeno della vita e individua nelle forme viventi una scala naturae di complessità, (...) auto-trascendimento e libertà via via crescenti, le cui tappe significative sono la vita organica, quella animale e quella umana. Per quel che concerne la forma animale, varie specie presentano “potenzialità trans-animali”, che evidenziano un ponte biologico e ontologico verso l’essere umano. In altre parole, l’animale è in qualche modo in grado di prefigurare la forma di vita specificamente umana. Tuttavia, sostiene Jonas, non appena quest’ultima fa la propria comparsa, essa è tale per cui se ne evidenzia al tempo stesso anche lo “iato metafisico” rispetto alla vita animale. La specificità umana si manifesta nella propria capacità di essere responsabile e di preservare le condizioni basilari per una vita autentica sul pianeta. (shrink)

Even as paleoanthropology becomes increasingly sophisticated in revealing both the broad contours and the details of the deep evolutionary history of Homo sapiens, it continues to be informed by lingering pre-evolutionary residues. Specifically, the goal of prior research was to demonstrate that the influence of the ancient Scala Naturae as an organizing principle significantly contributed to the scientific community’s delayed acceptance of Australopithecus as a plesiomorphic member of the Hominidae. The present study extends this research through a selective (...) examination of non-primary source material reporting on significant early hominid discoveries over the last century, beginning with Australopithecus africanus and ending with Ardipithecus ramidus. It is argued that these accessible sources reify to varying degrees the perception among the non-expert public that human beings are an inevitable culmination of the evolutionary process. This culturally transmitted schema of human exceptionalism continues to impact other life on Earth in profound ways, in some cases with calamitous results. (shrink)

Mikhalevich & Powell are to be commended for challenging the “invertebrate dogma” that invertebrates are unworthy of ethical concern. However, developing an evolutionarily inclusive ethics requires facing some of the more radical implications of rejecting hierarchical scala naturae and human-centered conceptions of the biological world. In particular, we need to question the anthropocentric assumptions that still linger in discussions like these.

With the increasing interest in Islam and evolution, some Islamic thinkers have vehemently rejected evolution, while others have eagerly embraced it. However, those seeking to embrace evolution sometimes err in their interpretation of historical writings. Indeed, there are texts written by famous historical scholars of Islam who seem to suggest that humans have evolved from lower forms of species. These include Ibn Khaldūn, Jalāl ad‐Dīn Rūmī, al‐Jāhiz, and The Brethren of Purity (Ikhwān al Safā). Although this may be true, such (...) readings are a mistaken interpretation of the aforementioned authors who are actually referring to some form of the scalae naturae (the Great Chain of Being). This reference to the Great Chain of Being is unknown to some contemporary readers who mistakenly believe these writers to be discussing an evolutionary or a proto‐evolutionary theory. This article demonstrates how and why these historical records do not actually represent any notion of evolution as it is currently understood, in the hope of avoiding any further erroneous claims that seem to be proliferating among modern thinkers. (shrink)

This paper attempts to reconstruct the views of the Stoic Posidonius on the emotions, especially as presented by Galen’s On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato. This is a well-studied area, and many views have been developed over the last few decades. It is also significant that the reliability of Galen’s account is openly at issue. Yet it is not clear that the interpretative possibilities have been fully demarcated. Here I develop Galen’s claim that Posidonius accepted a persistent, non-rational aspect (...) of the soul that he connects with the merely animal part of humans. The aim is to begin from this testimony in answering two questions: (1) How might the possession of a non-rational element of the soul operate alongside the hêgemonikon (leading-part of the soul) as a source of impulse for Posidonius. (2) How does this persistent animal aspect conform to the Stoic ontological classification found in their scala naturae? I shall argue in response to these that (a) Posidonius distinguished the merely cognitive aspects of the soul from those that are rational, and (b) that the hêgemonikon itself is not to be identified with what is rational. Accepting a persistent non-rational source of emotional impulses allows Posidonius a richer framework for explaining human affective responses and behaviours. I also briefly address Galen’s motivation for the account he offers. It is in view of Posidonius’ approach to Plato’s Timaeus that Galen’s discussion finds its most plausible interpretation. (shrink)

La biologie travaille sur des particuliers. De par son historicité, chaque entité biologique est unique. Nous devons pourtant les regrouper pour parvenir à en parler de manière générale. Nos classifications sont destinées à communiquer nos concepts, et ce faisant elles reflètent une intention. Comme nous sommes en science, nous préférons les procédures de regroupement (agglomératives) aux procédures de division, lesquelles finissent toujours par isoler les particuliers. En systématique, science des classifications, la géométrie de nos concepts est celle d’une hiérarchie par (...) emboîtement, du plus général au plus particulier, plutôt qu’une hiérarchie par empilement (comme dans le cas de la scala naturae), parce que les premières pratiquent l’inclusion tandis que les secondes pratiquent l’inclusion et l’exclusion. Les êtres biologiques sont traversés par une foule de ressemblances différentes, et la ressemblance globale, à vouloir les saisir toutes, n’en saisit rigoureusement aucune. Elle ne se distingue pas de la différence globale. Or, nous voulons travailler sur les partages, pas sur les différences, lesquelles finissent par isoler les entités. Ces partages, ce sont des attributs communs ou des propriétés partagées : c’est la ressemblance vue en mosaïque (qui donnera lieu à un mosaïcisme phylogénétique). Mais quel type de ressemblance est pris en compte? La ressemblance topologique est prioritaire (principe des connections), vient ensuite la ressemblance de forme et celle du processus de genèse (ou de mise en place : ontogénèse). La ressemblance de fonction est trop trompeuse pour être prise en compte. Mais trompeuse au regard de quel but? Nous classons pour parler des origines de ce qui existe. La classification moderne des êtres vivants reflète leur généalogie passée, ou du moins ce que nous pouvons en reconstruire indirectement (la phylogénie). Et pour cela, la ressemblance topologique est la plus efficace. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Animals in the World: Five Essays on Aristotle’s Biology by Pierre PellegrinChristopher LutzPELLEGRIN, Pierre. Animals in the World: Five Essays on Aristotle’s Biology. Translated by Anthony Preus. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2023. vi + 324 pp. Cloth, $95.00; paper, $35.95This book explores two broad questions that have for decades been driving Pierre Pellegrin’s contributions to the so-called biological turn in Aristotle studies: whether and in (...) what sense Aristotle actually has a biology; the degree to which Aristotle’s teleological commitments lead him to characterize living things and the world that they inhabit as perfect. By analyzing various interplays that the zoological treatises posit between, on the one hand, the form and end of each species and, on the other hand, its material and efficient causes, Pellegrin reveals the astounding depth of Aristotle’s affinity with modern biology.In consideration of the millennia-spanning distance between Aristotle and the emergence of modern biology in the nineteenth century, Pellegrin first of all seeks to establish that he may call Aristotle a biologist without committing anachronism. Chapter 1 identifies two teleological notions that connect Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals to nineteenth-century conceptions of biology: Using organic function as the primary organizational principle in comparative anatomy relates Aristotle to Cuvier, and the concept of adaptation relates Aristotle to Darwin. Citing the profound influence of History of Animals on Cuvier (and thus on nineteenth-century biology), Pellegrin argues that its chief biological [End Page 357] innovation lies in the suggestion that observation is epistemically useful even when we are unable to explain that which we have observed.Chapter 2 emphasizes the role that mechanistic (that is, material and efficient) causality plays within the teleological explanations in Aristotle’s studies of animals. After a lengthy discussion of hypothetical necessity, Pellegrin uses PA 1.1’s distinction between formal nature and material nature to suggest that Aristotle recognizes an “ontological autonomy” of material nature, by which he seems to mean that matter has certain properties independent of any form. Linking Aristotle to Darwin, he argues that for Aristotle the perfection of each species consists in its fitness for (everlasting) survival. The end-directed formal nature of the species must negotiate with its autonomous material nature in order to secure for it an advantageous condition that guarantees its permanence but inevitably comes at the expense of certain disadvantages. For example, birds have no ears because they need extra matter for feathers (see PA 2.12).Shifting the focus to a crucial difference between Aristotle and modern biology, chapter 3 investigates the unity of Aristotelian natural science and biology’s place within it. Pellegrin finds analogies between Aristotle’s explanations of sexual reproduction, spontaneous generation, and Meteorology ’s account of the formation of inanimate homoiomerous matter (for example, metals, minerals). Sexual reproduction (clearly involving a material, formal, efficient, and final cause) is more causally complex than spontaneous generation (which according to Pellegrin has no preexisting final cause and only a quasi-formal cause), yet we understand spontaneous generation only by analogy with sexual reproduction, which is for Aristotle explanatorily prior. Spontaneous generation, in turn, is marginally more complex than the formation of homoiomerous matter (which also has only a quasi-formal cause and, further, no final cause at all), yet we understand the latter only by analogy with spontaneous generation and sexual reproduction. Pellegrin concludes that all natural science is united insofar as “material-efficient causality concerns all natural realities,” living and nonliving alike; however, because Aristotle in each case explains the less complex by analogy with the more complex, the teleological study of fully developed living things is explanatorily primary within his natural science. In this way, Aristotle stands in stark contrast to modern natural science, in which biology is explanatorily posterior to chemistry and physics.Chapter 4 qualifies the explanatory priority of complex organisms by challenging any notion of an Aristotelian scala naturae. Pellegrin works to show that the recognition of irreducible diversity is present in Aristotle’s very definition of an animal, arguing that in animals the nutritive faculty is neither ontologically nor developmentally prior to the sensitive and motive... (shrink)

Il pensiero di Hans Jonas, specie per quel che riguarda la cosiddetta “biologia filosofica”, tratta indirettamente del rapporto tra essere umano e animale. A questo riguardo, Jonas rifiuta sia l’approccio dualistico, sia quello monistico-riduzionistico e propende al contrario per una complessiva reinterpretazione del fenomeno della vita nei termini di quel che egli definisce una “rivoluzione ontologica”. In virtù di ciò, il pensatore rintraccia lo specifico del fenomeno della vita e individua nelle forme viventi una scala naturae di complessità, (...) auto-trascendimento e libertà via via crescenti, le cui tappe significative sono la vita organica, quella animale e quella umana. Per quel che concerne la forma animale, varie specie presentano “potenzialità trans-animali”, che evidenziano un ponte biologico e ontologico verso l’essere umano. In altre parole, l’animale è in qualche modo in grado di prefigurare la forma di vita specificamente umana. Tuttavia, sostiene Jonas, non appena quest’ultima fa la propria comparsa, essa è tale per cui se ne evidenzia al tempo stesso anche lo “iato metafisico” rispetto alla vita animale. La specificità umana si manifesta nella propria capacità di essere responsabile e di preservare le condizioni basilari per una vita autentica sul pianeta. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aristotelian Explorations by G. E. R. LloydRosamond Kent SpragueG. E. R. Lloyd. Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp. ix + 242. Cloth, $49.95.Although the essays in this richly rewarding book were given as lectures and seminars in a variety of places over a period of eight years, they possess a unity of theme that welds them into a satisfying whole. Furthermore, by the judicious use of (...) postscripts and additional notes, the author keeps us abreast of current discussion. [End Page 126]Lloyd’s chief concern is to compare Aristotle’s theory (notably as expressed in the Posterior Analytics) with his practice (especially in the zoology). The topic may be, as he admits in his 1990 Boston Colloquium lecture, “The Theories and Practices of Demonstration,” a “hoary old chestnut,” but his response to it is not; as is evident from the very title of his paper, he adopts a pluralistic approach to Aristotle’s methodology. Lloyd’s minute and extensive knowledge of the texts, as when he studies passages in the Topics in which what is there called apodeixis does not meet the conditions laid down in Posterior Analytics, makes his view compelling. Again, a careful study of Parts of Animals I, 1 issues in the caveat that “we had better be careful when talking about demonstration in the physical treatises, to examine what mode or manner of demonstration is in question” (33); it could be the method of deduction of antecedents, for instance, where we start with what will be rather than what is. In general, it needs to be considered not just whether a particular theory of demonstration is applied, but whether it is applicable.In a chapter entitled “The Relationship of Psychology to Zoology,” Lloyd discusses Aristotle’s theory of matter, particularly “the problem of reconciling what is true of earth, water, air, and fire haplōs... and what is true of them as the constituent elements of living uniform parts” (64). This difficulty has its repercussions for his form/matter distinction: the difference between the two is best illustrated by artefacts (as, I might add, is evident to those who attempt to teach it), but the unity of the sonolon by the cases in which the soul is form and the matter a living body of which the soul is the actuality.In this connection Lloyd makes reference to Aristotle’s “top-down theory of life” as being one quite definitely held by him (64, 99). I think that this is only partially the case. A passage such as De Anima 415a25ff. in which not only animals but plants are said, through reproduction, to aim at the eternal and divine, suggests that a “bottom-up” theory of life is equally important in his psychology, especially in view of his pervasive desire to stress the final cause. I think that Lloyd’s own principle of plurality in relation to context could well be applied here. The overall structure of the De Anima illustrates Aristotle’s use of both methods: bottom-up from nutrition through sensation to thought, but top-down from sight to touch. It is, of course, true that the De Anima is not concerned to address the question of how life emerges from not-life, but its discussion of living things quite definitely begins at the bottom of the scala naturae, with plants. Again, at History of Animals 588b4ff. (a passage crucial to Lloyd’s consideration of borderline cases in his chapter entitled “Fuzzy Natures?”), we find that Nature proceeds from the inanimate to the animate, and that first after the inanimate come plants. It also strikes me as being of interest that, when Aristotle discusses the difficult topic of growth in Generation and Corruption 321b16ff., he does so at the level of flesh and not of hands, from the bottom up, that is.Of other topics on which Lloyd has things to say, that of spontaneous generation is of particular interest. Here he points out that spontaneously generated creatures are of regular kinds; they have determinate material causes. As to whether Aristotle’s recognition of such cases has driven him “into admitting a principle that offers a glaring... (shrink)

This article tackles the construction of an exemplary image of the modern man in the 15th century. The corpus is centered on a fundamental work in the history of Western thought: Oration on the Dignity of Man, by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, which represents the “spirit of a period” and projects an exemplary image of the human being through the rewriting of the origin myth. The manner in which Adam was created and how that defines the new way in which (...) he is fashioned will be the basis for a new way of being, free from the doctrine of original sin and without seeing his capacities as a human being diminished. Through the analysis of this mythological reconstruction and also through modifications of the biblical account, several characteristics of the man about to come will be uncovered. Special attention will be given to the displacement suffered by man in relation to the world, as Pico establishes man as a contemplator of the universe, the consequences of the liberation from the scala naturae, and the prominence of desire in Pico’s conception of man. (shrink)

In his 2013 monograph on Structure and Method in Aristotle’s Meteorologica, Malcolm Wilson has shown both that Aristotle conceived of meteorological phenomena as analogous to the bodily processes of animals, and that for the Stagirite the sublunar world should not be seen as a single body, but rather as composed of many different individuals. However, Wilson did not articulate the relationship between these two theories—that is, he did not answer the following question: how is it possible for the Earth to (...) behave like an animal if it is not a single body? This paper argues that the answer to this question lies in the Aristotelian statement about the different paschein of the Earth and animals. In fact, in the chapter of Meteorology dedicated to climatic changes (1.14), Aristotle, after comparing such changes to the maturing and ageing of living organisms, states that ‘only, in the case of the bodies of plants and animals being affected does not occur in each part separately, but it is necessary for the being to mature and decay all at once, whereas in the case of the Earth this occurs in each part separately, due to cooling and warming’ (351a.28-31). In his commentary, Alexander of Aphrodisias reiterates that the difference between the changes of the Earth and those of living organisms concern the way in which these different subjects undergo affections (pathê). The concept of paschein/pathos is thus fundamental to understanding how Aristotle conceives of biological analogies, which play a key role in his meteorology: as the affections of maturing and corruption show, parallels with organic processes can be found in meteorological phenomena, but always at the level of the individual parts of the Earth. Although the sublunary world can be understood in organic terms, this world is not a ‘cosmic animal’, but rather a multiplicity of ‘regional animals’. To corroborate this thesis, this paper addresses several related questions, including: the mechanics ofenvironmental changes according to Aristotle; the differences between the regions of the Earth; the lexicon used in Meteorology to refer to the transformations of the Earth; the personal notes that Alexander adds to Aristotle’s discussion. Finally, the first modern translation of the relevant section of Alexander’s commentary is also provided here. (shrink)

Darwin proclaimed his own work revolutionary. His revolution, however, is still in progress, and the changes that are going on are reflected in the contemporary historical and philosophical literature, including that written by scientists. The changes have taken place at different levels, and have tended to occur at the more superficial ones. The new ontology that arose as a consequence of the realization that species are individuals at once provides an analytical tool for explaining what has been happening and an (...) example of the kind of changes that seem in order. It provides a clear distinction between the roles of history and of laws of nature. Pre-Darwinian "evolution" was superficial in the sense that it treated change as either as something pre-ordained or else due to timeless laws of nature, rather than historical contingency. Darwinism puts the ontological emphasis upon concrete, particular things (individuals) and therefore delegitimizes both essentialistic and teleological ways of thinking. However, traditional ways of thinking have persisted, if not explicitly, then often as assumptions and procedures that are merely implicit or even unconscious. As a result, anti-evolutionary attitudes continue to influence the practice of evolutionary biology as well as the study of its history and philosophy. (shrink)

This essay explores an unstudied compendium to Margaret Cavendish’s 1655 Philosophical and Physical Opinions that was composed by the learned physician, plant anatomist, and secretary of the Royal Society, Nehemiah Grew. Despite the growing body of scholarship on Cavendish, minimal attention has been dedicated to her early reception. But studying this compendium provides some fascinating insights into how one of the foremost thinkers of her day read, emended, and manipulated her ideas. I propose that Grew turned to Cavendish’s work when (...) developing his substance theory in the years leading up to the publication of his 1682 The Anatomy of Plants, but that shifting intellectual tides led him to critique her version of material vitalism in his 1701 Cosmologia Sacra. Supported by a transcription of the compendium as an appendix, this article also sheds light on the role that early modern pedagogical techniques and memory tools played in shaping concepts of matter and mind. (shrink)

Linear depictions of the evolutionary process are ubiquitous in popular culture, but linear evolutionary imagery is strongly rejected by scientists who argue that evolution branches. This point is frequently illustrated by saying that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but that we are related to them as collateral relatives. Yet, we did evolve from monkeys, but our monkey ancestors are extinct, not extant. Influential voices, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, have misled audiences for decades by falsely portraying the linear (...) and branching aspects of evolution to be in conflict, and by failing to distinguish between the legitimate linearity of evolutionary descent, and the branching relationships among collateral relatives that result when lineages of ancestors diverge. The purpose of this article is to correct the widespread misplaced rejection of linear evolutionary imagery, and to re-emphasize the basic truth that the evolutionary process is fundamentally linear. (shrink)

Se realiza un análisis de la Historia presentando un enfoque materialista y fenomenológico. Se exponen algunas características epistemológicas y el planteamiento de que la Historia consiste no una visión sobre el pasado como una reconstrucción a partir de relatos y reliquias, formándose la verdad o los hechos a partir de las identidades sintéticas.

La raccolta di dati nella nostra era dell’”Information Technology” ha generato una rivoluzione nella conoscenza. Nell’era dei “big data”, la conseguente crescita senza precedenti dei dati, ha reso necessari cambiamenti nella scala, nella natura e nello stato dei dati, portando quindi i ricercatori ad adottare nuovi paradigmi e metodologie nella ricerca filosofica. In particolare, l’attenzione teorica della filosofia del linguaggio si è spostata verso la conoscenza cognitiva, con un’enfasi sulla proposizione particolare del “data turn” nella cognizione cognitiva nell’era dei (...) “big data”. Il paper esplora la potenziale portata della ricerca quantitativa del “data turn” nella filosofia del linguaggio, tramite l’analisi della necessità di trasformare i paradigmi della ricerca qualitativa e quantitativa, ricostruendo l’approccio quantitativo della filosofia del linguaggio ed ampliando l’analisi delle relazioni uomo-dati nella filosofia dei “big data”. Il paper conclude affermando che sono necessarie ulteriori ricerche per esaminare in modo ancor più approfondito la relazione tra linguaggio, dati e filosofia. (shrink)

A quasi un secolo da L’Opera d’arte all’epoca della sua riproducibilità tecnica di Walter Benjamin e mentre si svolge il dibattito sull’agency degli oggetti, il tema di questo articolo è la potenza del «classico» nella cultura contemporanea, per la quale l’ordine cronologico secondo cui gli artefatti vengono prodotti non è più dirimente per comprenderne la valenza storica e la qualità estetica. Se classica è per noi la Cnosso minoica inventata a Creta dall’archeologo Arthur Evans con ampio uso di cemento all’inizio (...) del Novecento, che cosa resta del classico una volta orfano della sua natura di passato? Seguendo l’indicazione dataci da Michel Foucault, per il quale la nostra epoca si organizza secondo criteri spaziali e non temporali, originali e copie dell’arte greco-romana vengono qui pensati come corpi naturali – variamente distribuiti su scala locale e globale –, e i loro rapporti sono descritti mettendo in luce le relazioni topologiche che essi intrattengono, piuttosto di quelle genetiche. Reperti e fossili. Il metodo di riferimento utilizzato è la cladistica: un sistema di visualizzazione in uso nella biologia evolutiva che concepisce la struttura della storia della vita in base a una serie di diagrammi ramificati che rappresentano l’ordine di parentela tra gli organismi, mostrando la via che li collega con maggior probabilità. Invece di spiegare i processi evolutivi come una serie di cause e successivi effetti il cui nesso produce eventi puntuali, la cladistica prevede un ventaglio di possibilità da visualizzare in un punto di congiunzione che rappresenta l’insieme delle caratteristiche condivise che ci aspetteremmo presenti in un ipotetico antenato comune a due o più specie, per differenza da altre. Questo approccio suffraga il paradigma indiziario con cui presenta più di qualche analogia. La storia dei prestiti tra scienze naturali e umane si trova così ulteriormente arricchita. Il fatto di inserire il possibile nel passato, come già suggeriva Henri Bergson, permette di ripensare il processo di imitazione in termini di metamorfosi, e in particolare di «pseudomorfosi». Oswald Spengler si valse di questo termine mineralogico per spiegare come nuove culture penetrino in culture loro aliene di cui assumono la forma pervertendone il contenuto, e venendone a loro volta pervertite, così da dar vita a uno straordinario processo di finzione: questo articolo termina suggerendo che il «classico» è, nelle sue varie incarnazioni, un processo squisitamente pseudomorfico e che proprio questo gli permette di partecipare a quella dialettica tra cultura alta e mondo profano che, secondo lo studioso dei media Boris Groys, è ciò che produce il nuovo. (shrink)

Nel dibattito contemporaneo sul cosmopolitismo, una delle posizioni più originali e complesse è stata espressa da Jürgen Habermas. Egli si è soffermato sul tema della globalizzazione della politica e dell’internazionalizzazione del diritto, interrogandosi a lungo sul destino dell’Europa e dell’Occidente e ha aderito alla tesi della domestic analogy. Ha previsto la possibilità di superare lo stato di natura estendendo la democrazia sul piano sovranazionale, attraverso una proiezione, su scala globale, del modello contrattualista. Nel corso del lavoro, analizziamo la teoria (...) habermasiana e i mutamenti che essa ha subito nel corso degli anni. Prendiamo quindi in considerazione uno tra i più rilevanti corollari della teoria: la fiducia, in termini di aspettative politiche, che Habermas ripone nei confronti dell’Unione Europea. (shrink)

En los últimos años, el interés por la semántica de términos ficticios ha crecido considerablemente en el marco de la tradición analítica. De forma general, es posible distinguir dos grandes tipos de propuestas semánticas: las propuestas ontológicamente comprometidas con entidades ficticias y las que evitan dicho compromiso . Entre estas últimas, se destaca la propuesta inscripcionalista de Nelson Goodman y Catherine Elgin, que constituye el eje de análisis del presente artículo. Su objetivo principal es mostrar algunas de las ventajas de (...) la propuesta inscripcionalista frente a las propuestas realistas. En la segunda sección, analizo algunas de las dificultades que conllevan las propuestas realistas y luego muestro que estas no tienen lugar en la propuesta de Goodman y Elgin. En la tercera sección, presento la propuesta inscripcionalista, centrándome en su ampliación, la noción de referencia y sus diversas modalidades, y también analizo una serie de enunciados problemáticos utilizando los modos referenciales anteriormente presentados. (shrink)

If temporal parts are bona fide parts, then it is fitting to clarify and extend that notion (and related ones) using the resources of a theory of parts. But it often seems that those engaged in the 3D/4D debate appear to take for granted that, aside from introducing a welcome measure of rigor to the discussion, issues regarding theories of parthood can be allowed to recede into the background. What follows challenges that assumption — I demonstrate that the nature of (...) the fundamental mereological relation1 can decisively influence the outcome of the debate over persistence. In short, I show that if the fundamental mereological relation is proper parthood-at-atime then four-dimensionalism is false.2 Recognizing this does at least two things for us. First, it supplies a framework in which three-dimensionalists can clarify two things they have tended to say all along, namely that persisting things are ‘wholly present’ throughout their careers and that they do not have temporal parts. Second, it re-focuses the debate on a narrower and perhaps more tractable question: “What is the nature of the fundamental mereological relation?”. (shrink)

In “Extensionality of Parthood and Composition,”1 Achille Varzi mounts a spirited defense of the extensionality of parthood, or ‘EP’. According to EP, if x and y are composite objects with all the same proper parts then x = y.2 A number of philosophers, he notes, have objected that EP is false on the grounds that, for example, a statue and lump of clay (or a tinkertoy house and the wood from which it is made, in Varzi’s example) are distinct yet (...) share all their proper parts. A number of considerations — for example, that a statue and lump of clay have different persistence conditions — are commonly raised to support this non-extensionalist conclusion. Varzi maintains, on the other hand, that this case and others like it do not support non-extensionalism. However, there are reasons to doubt the cogency of his argument. In outline, Varzi’s argument runs as follows. Suppose that (i) α and β are (say) a statue and a lump, respectively,3 and also suppose that (ii) α = β. ∗This is a draft and so unsuitable for citation in any form. Any comments or suggestions are welcome and can be emailed to me at [email protected]. Check back periodically for newer versions. 1Varzi 2008 2Varzi 2008, p. 108. 3To avoid complications, let’s assume throughout that they have the same lifespan. Naturally, we should suppose they are co-located. (shrink)

I give reasons to suggest that the various ‘homogeneous substance’ objections to perdurance theory should not be regarded as raising serious difficulties. The main strategy is to show that there are equally exotic possibilities involving extended mereological simples that may turn the tables on the endurance theorist, insofar as she will have difficulties with these cases analogous to those she raises for the perdurantist. I conclude that such exotic cases are less useful that we might suppose in adjudicating between these (...) competing doctrines of persistence. (shrink)

"Un monde fait d'atomes et de vide, des phénomènes réductibles aux mouvements et aux formes des atomes : ce sont là deux aspects bien connus de la philosophie matérialiste et mécaniste d'Épicure. Une telle conception de l'univers peut-elle cependant rendre véritablement compte de l'être vivant et de sa physiologie? Comment un rassemblement de matière aléatoirement combinée produirait-il un organisme? Et si le vivant est une sorte de mécanisme, qu'est-ce qui différencie un mécanisme vital des autres? L'ouvrage examine de façon systématique (...) les réponses épicuriennes à ces questions en s'attachant notamment à les replacer dans un dialogue avec les philosophes antérieurs, principalement Démocrite et Aristote."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)