Aristotle Essay, Research Paper

mysteriously combine to form an organism (6). Hence it is not clear what he had in mind when he described an active intellect whose activity is presupposed by the activity of the human mind and that is supposed to be able to exist independently of the body.

Aristotle spent years studying the natural sciences and collecting specimens, and about 90 percent of his writings are on scientific subjects, mostly on biological ones (5). Aristotle believed he could account for the changes and alterations in this world without either having to deny their reality or having to appeal to another world. For Aristotle all natural objects were composed of form and matter, and the changes that take place in matter are the substitution of one form for another. This substitution takes place because every natural object has a goal, or telos, which it is its nature to achieve. Thus stones, because they are essentially material, seek the lowest point, which is why they fall down. Each species is ultimately trying to achieve a state of perfection which for Aristotle was a state of perfect rest.

Most of Aristotle’s work in biology was devoted to zoology. In Aristotle’s study of biology the doctrine of teleology is particularly prominent. This doctrine, that the form of natural objects is determined by their final ends or purposes, has frequently been misunderstood as an assertion that there is a universal design in nature (2,4). Although, as I believe Immanuel Kant suggests, teleology may lead to theology, after the assimilation of Aristotelian idea’s by Saint Aquinas into religious belief, teleology has became a divine concept. If, however, this conclusion is not reached, an equally erroneous idea that Evolution is the mechanism of teleology is also in error. This is made clear from a quote from Marjorie Grene;

” (Teleology has) no theological purpose or plan, is not interested in an

overall cosmic telos. The stability of the universe is a necessary condition

for orderly processes, but not a target” (4).

Aristotle simply insists that the structure and the behavior of things also has to be understood as contributing to their individual being and function.

To investigate teleology and evolution, the notion of chance must be considered. The limits of chance occurrence is largely considered by Aristotle to pertain to individuals and then only within certain parameters. Grene writes in “The Understanding of Nature,”

“Thus chance events occur only within the limits of inherent aim: an aim not

imposed by nature from without, but intrinsic in, and particular to, the specific

character of each natural kind of thing, the being-what-it-is” (4).

Elliot Sober offers a more specific example of chance while considering how mis-information during reproduction can result in “abnormalities.” In “The Nature Of Selection” he states; “They may, in the Aristotelian phrase, prevent the “form from completely mastering the matter.” Mules (sterile hybrids) are a case in point” (8). Also, Aristotle seemed to have thought that there were entire species, such as seals and lobsters, that counted as monstrosities (8).

When chance is referred to in modern biology it is largely interpreted in terms of probability or frequency, and then mostly within the scope of populations of individuals. With the advent of Quantum Physics, it is now known that chance does play a role in nature and not that we are just ignorant of details (8). Instead, possible results are quantified and often anticipated.

Neither teleology nor Evolution relies on chance as a mechanism for an end. For Aristotle, change and movement in nature should be thought of as the operation of a “Nisus,” a principal somewhat like aspiration, yearning, or desire, drawing things to develop into what they are drawn into being (2). Again, it seems that individual things are the point of interest in this mechanism which drives them to stability and order.

In evolution, the driving force is Natural Selection. Interestingly, for it to work at all, there must be variation (in fitness). But once a selection process begins, it gradually destroys the conditions needed for it’s continued operation (8). Hence, variability is natural where as uniformity is the result of the form not completely mastering the matter.

Despite the fact that teleology, as Aristotle perceived it, cannot be brought fully into 20th century, a telos concept makes the comparison of organisms possible and has been called ” a sign post to the study of nature” (4). Only in a system that is somewhat ordered can the study of life begin (4). The common features that describe a species or genus are the guides to abnormalities or alternate patterns of development.

If an organisms natural development is it’s telos, then matter, or hyle, as it relates to form is also of the utmost importance. This idea holds true today in a time when scientists with government support investigate DNA sequences that would prove pointless without knowing the form in question. The knowledge of proteins, organelles, cells, and organs means nothing unless interpreted by scientists familiar with the forms. Technically no life exists on an atomic level and all that can be ascertained at that level is various reactions that provide little information to an organic natural world.

It is by observation and experience without the benefit of experimentation that allows biology to be available to all, rather than other sciences. The educated biologist becomes able to apply the other disciplines to gain knowledge of matter through the investigation of form. This investigation leads to a telos concept which assists the analysis of the unusual. The legacy of Aristotle’s philosophy is greater than described here, however the benefit of searching for knowledge from the past is clear in a letter Sir Issac Newton wrote to Robert Hooke in which he asserts, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

31a