Category Archives: Aristotle

Aristotelian Objections to Platonic Animal Classification

Posted on by

Deep into his criticism of the dichotomist method of division, Aristotle and his opponents are deciding what genera and species of animals truly exist.  To discover these natural kinds of animals, the appropriate method of division, that is, a way of separating animals from each other into categories precisely representative of species, is under contentious dispute.

And yet it is necessary to divide by privation, and the dichotomists do divide [in this way].  But there is no difference of a privation qua privation.  For it is impossible for there to be species of what is not, for example of “non-footed” or of “non-winged” just as there are species of “footed” and “winged.”  Furthermore it is necessary that species belong to a generic difference.  For if they do not, why would they belong to a generic difference and not a specific difference? (Aristotle, Parts of Animals, 642b21-26).(1)

Some say that species should be divided into two with each of the two branches always branching off into two more, until the point where a termination results in an actual species.  For example, if we begin by dividing animals into footed and non-footed, and then the footed into bi-pedal and poly-pedal, we can then divide bi-pedal into split-toed and web-toed, etc.  Advocates of this process of dichotomy are called dichotomists.

Aristotle, on the other hand, advocates opening more than one line of division, not limiting himself to the dichotomist method which follows only one of two branches at every step.  In this section of the text, Aristotle, believing that dichotomists commit themselves to “privation” as well, argues that privation is incompatible with dichotomy.  By privation Aristotle simply means a negation of some difference, such as in the example above, “non-footed” as contrasted with “footed.”  The privation objection demonstrates Aristotle’s characteristic subtlety and insight as he, perhaps ironically, forces his opponents into a logical dichotomy: Either the privation is an actual species of animal or it is not, and further division must continue.

Now if we continue with the first option, that there is an actual species of privative animal, say, non-footed, then this seems precluded for the following reasons.  Most obviously, something which is not cannot be said to be.(2) It is also the case that being non-footed would not pick out a species, as it could generically apply to a worm, a whale and a snake, not to mention the variations of each animal.  And yet, even if it were that case that “non-footed” faithfully picked out only a single animal (pretend that earthworms are the only non-footed animals), it is unclear how non-footed is an essential property of earthworms.  After all, earthworms are also furless, wingless, knuckle-less, eyelash-less, and money-less, to name just a few things.

On the other hand, if the privation is not a species, but must be further divided, then Aristotle clearly precludes this possibility in the above text.  Why this is so is unclear, but I will have a preliminary answer in the next post, as well as offer up a Platonic solution which could perhaps stand up under Aristotle’s scrutiny.

 

REFERENCES:

 

(1)
Translation mine:
Ἔτι στερήσει μὲν ἀναγκαῖον διαιρεῖν, καὶ διαιροῦσιν οἱ
διχοτομοῦντες. Οὐκ ἔστι δὲ διαφορὰ στερήσεως ᾗ στέρησις·
ἀδύνατον γὰρ εἴδη εἶναι τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, οἷον τῆς ἀποδίας ἢ τοῦ
ἀπτέρου ὥσπερ πτερώσεως καὶ ποδῶν. Δεῖ δὲ τῆς καθόλου δια-
φορᾶς εἴδη εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἔσται, διὰ τί ἂν εἴη τῶν καθόλου
καὶ οὐ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον;

(2)
I assume A. would approve this, for he says something logically analogous in the case where we suppose that privations are divided into further species.

What is Aether in Aristotle and Plato (and Hesiod)?

Posted on by

Here we have three accounts: Aristotle, Plato and Hesiod, on the etymology of aether. Despite being the non-philosopher, with typically non-rational, mythological explanations, guess who comes closest to the correct explanation as originating from aitho (αἴθω) light up, kindle and in the passive (αἴθομαι) burn, blaze? On a related and decidedly politically incorrect note, the Greek name for Ethiopians is literally “[sun]burnt face.”

We call the substance of the heaven and stars “aether,” not as some do, because it burns (aithesthai), being fire-like, although they are wrong about this ability, which is confused for fire’s, but because it is always moving (aei thein), being carried in a circular motion, being an element different than the four, unmixed and divine. (Aristotle, On the Cosmos, 392a) [1]

I construe “aether” in this way, that it is always running (aei thei), because it flows around the air (aera reon), so it would justly be called aeitheer. (Plato, Cratylus, 410b) [2]

and in turn Aether and Day came forth from Night,
whom she gave birth to after mingling in love with Erebus…
(Hesiod, Theogony, 124-125) [3]

We can see here that, although not explicit, Hediod’s account, which pairs Day and Aether together, clearly considers Aether to be something like “shining” or “brightness,” in contrast to the blackness of Night, from which every day, and its light, comes forth.

Hesiod appears to be the clear winner, although to be fair, Aristotle is usually not taken to be the author of On The Cosmos.

 

REFERENCES

[1] Οὐρανοῦ δὲ καὶ ἄστρων οὐσίαν μὲν αἰθέρα καλοῦμεν, οὐχ, ὥς τινες, διὰ τὸ πυρώδη οὖσαν αἴθεσθαι, πλημμελοῦντες περὶ τὴν πλεῖστον πυρὸς ἀπηλλαγμένην δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ θεῖν κυκλοφορουμένην, στοιχεῖον οὖσαν ἕτερον τῶν τεττάρων, ἀκήρατόν τε καὶ θεῖον.

[2] τὸν δὲ αἰθέρα τῇδέ πῃ ὑπολαμβάνω, ὅτι ἀεὶ θεῖ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ῥέων ἀειθεὴρ δικαίως ἂν καλοῖτο.

[3] Νυκτὸς δ᾿ αὖτ᾿ Αἰθήρ τε καὶ Ἡμέρη ἐξεγένοντο,
οὓς τέκε κυσαμένη Ἐρέβει φιλότητι μιγεῖσα..

 

Why Do Aristotle’s Children Call All Men Fathers and All Women Mothers?

Posted on by

What is at first obvious and clear to us is rather jumbled together.  And later elements and principles come to be knowable from these things when we distinguish them.  Therefore it is necessary to proceed from universals to particulars: for the whole is more knowable in sense perception, and the universal is a certain whole, while the universal embraces many things as parts.  And the same thing occurs in this way also with names in relation to an account (logos).  For a whole signifies a something, i.e. indiscriminately, a circle, for example, but the definition of a circle divides it into particulars.  And small children (ta paidia) at first call all men fathers and all women mothers, and later they distinguish each one of these (Translation mine, Aristotle, Physics 184a21-184b14).      

It is “obvious,” to steal an overused term the all-seeing Aristotle often employs, to many readers that Aristotle’s “universal” and “particular” here must be different than his usage elsewhere.  What exactly is he getting at?  Since he gives two examples at the end of this section, we can probably gain the best interpretation by looking at them.  The first seems rather straightforward, it takes much less conceptually to understand the term “circle,” though it certainly conjures up something in even the most basic minds.  Yet, the definition of a circle will involve many constituent parts, as one of Euclid’s definitions demonstrates: “A circle is (1) a plane figure (2) contained by one line (3) such that all the straight lines (4) falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure (5) equal one another.”  Alternatively, perhaps, maybe Aristotle’s point is there are many terms in the one: shape, round, etc.

More puzzling is his remark on children calling all men and women fathers and mothers.  In what sense do children “call” men and women fathers and mothers?
Here are some options on what he could mean:

A) Each child thinks that every man and woman is also a father and mother, because in his own case, obviously, his father is a man and a man is his father, and his mother is a woman and a woman is his mother.

B) Each child (a baby?) thinks that any adult it sees is a parent, in the loose, naive way such a mind would think this, possibly because the adult is a potential instrument of wish-granting.

I am also interested in the examples of the circle and the child-calling: are they supposed to be entirely analogous or are different points being made?   There is a difference but it is difficult to express exactly what the relevant distinction each example has for Aristotle’s purposes. It seems that the circle example is showing how a broad term or concept can also be understood as consisting of parts (though interpretation seems susceptible of taking this is many ways).  But the child-calling example, on first take, is about a child who displays only the first step of the circle example, and badly botching it at that, since it perceives men and fathers as “jumbled together.”

 

 

REFERENCES:

[1] ἔστι δ’ ἡμῖν τὸ πρῶτον δῆλα καὶ σαφῆ τὰ
συγκεχυμένα μᾶλλον· ὕστερον δ’ ἐκ τούτων γίγνεται γνώριμα
τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ διαιροῦσι ταῦτα. διὸ ἐκ τῶν κα-
θόλου ἐπὶ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα δεῖ προϊέναι· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον κατὰ
τὴν αἴσθησιν γνωριμώτερον, τὸ δὲ καθόλου ὅλον τί ἐστι· (25)
πολλὰ γὰρ περιλαμβάνει ὡς μέρη τὸ καθόλου. πέπονθε δὲ
(184b) ταὐτὸ τοῦτο τρόπον τινὰ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα πρὸς τὸν λόγον· (10)
ὅλον γάρ τι καὶ ἀδιορίστως σημαίνει, οἷον ὁ κύκλος, ὁ δὲ
ὁρισμὸς αὐτοῦ διαιρεῖ εἰς τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα. καὶ τὰ παιδία τὸ μὲν πρῶτον προσαγορεύει πάντας τοὺς ἄνδρας πατέρας καὶ
μητέρας τὰς γυναῖκας, ὕστερον δὲ διορίζει τούτων ἑκάτερον.