Μέγιστα Γένη and Division in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals

Stoyles, Byron J.

doi:10.1515/apeiron-2013-0010

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a good defense that these are great genera, see Gotthelf 2012: 293-306. For an opposing view, see Stoyles: 2012. 45 Although Charles accepts a version of the unity assumption, he believes that Aristotle can appeal to a variety of common soul-functions to mark off natural kinds. Charles 2000: 316-26.…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Dividing Nature by the Joints

Wiener

2015

Apeiron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most scholars of Aristotle's biology have accepted the view of D. M. Balme and Pierre Pellegrin that the History of Animals is devoid of any systematic classification of animals. I challenge this reading. I show that Aristotle can produce a taxonomy of animals kinds that are found in the essences of atomic species, or, to borrow from Plato, divide nature by the joints. I start from Aristotle's positive views of division stated in APo. II.13-14 and how they imply a taxonomic order of a genus. I then develop my interpretation of how Aristotle can divide nature by the joints in respect to his criticisms of division in APr. I.31 paired with the methodology developed in APr. I.27-30. I conclude by illustrating that Aristotle employs this methodology to divide the genus animal by its joints in the History of Animals and how he seeks out the taxonomic order of the genus animal in that work.The method of division was employed by scientists from at least the Renaissance to Linnaeus to generate their taxonomies of biological kinds. They, of course, were inspired by Aristotle but through the lens of Neo-Platonism and the tree of Porphyry. According to this tradition, Aristotle was seen as the first taxonomist of animal kinds. But this view slowly eroded in the 20 th century. A close examination of Aristotle's History of Animals and the other biological treatises exposed various classifications of animals, no apparent systematic use of principles of classification, and no clear taxonomic arrangement of kinds. 1 By the second half of the 20 th century, D. M. Balme argued that Aristotle's primary use of division was not classification but definition and is helpful in seeking causal explanations. 2 Pierre Pellegrin then dealt the apparent death-blow, showing conclusively that the terms γένος and εἶδος do not denote fixed kinds  Chad Wiener: Old Dominion University -Philosophy and Religious Studies, 9029 Batten Arts and Letters,

show abstract

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Dividing Nature by the Joints

Wiener

2015

Apeiron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Μέγιστα Γένη and Division in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Dividing Nature by the Joints

Dividing Nature by the Joints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About