Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Notes on contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- I Biology and philosophy: an overview
- II Definition and demonstration: theory and practice
- III Teleology and necessity in nature
- IV Metaphysical themes
- 11 Aristotle's biology was not essentialist
- 12 Logical difference and biological difference: the unity of Aristotle's thought
- 13 Kinds, forms of kinds, and the more and the less in Aristotle's biology
- 14 Animals and other beings in Aristotle
- 15 Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality
- 16 Aristotle on the place of mind in nature
- List of works cited
- Index locorum
- General index
14 - Animals and other beings in Aristotle
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Notes on contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- I Biology and philosophy: an overview
- II Definition and demonstration: theory and practice
- III Teleology and necessity in nature
- IV Metaphysical themes
- 11 Aristotle's biology was not essentialist
- 12 Logical difference and biological difference: the unity of Aristotle's thought
- 13 Kinds, forms of kinds, and the more and the less in Aristotle's biology
- 14 Animals and other beings in Aristotle
- 15 Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality
- 16 Aristotle on the place of mind in nature
- List of works cited
- Index locorum
- General index
Summary
Animals, in Aristotle's view, are paradigm instances of substance-being. We may wonder whether Aristotle began with that conviction and shaped his ontology in the light of it, or arrived at it as a result of what his ontology revealed the nature of substance to be, and that question in turn may be related to our views about when and with what attitude he did his biological work. But whatever we decide to say on these questions, our answers will have to take account of his clear conviction that natural living things are ‘above all substances’.
We should therefore expect that Aristotle thought the most important features of substance to be exemplified in the case of living entities. This need not mean that he claimed that only animals are substances. On the whole, Aristotle was less concerned with the correct identification of a class of entities which are substances than with the proper understanding of the principles and modes of being by virtue of which those entities which we commonly understood to be substantial beings are substantial. He was, we might say, less interested in substances than in substance-being, less concerned with the question of what beings are substances than with the question of what it is to be a substance. But among the beings that Aristotle saw as commonly (and therefore in some sense correctly) understood to exemplify substance-being, animals came first, and those features which metaphysics reveals as characteristic of substance-being should therefore be evident in the being of animals.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology , pp. 360 - 391Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1987
- 20
- Cited by