Aristotle

8. BIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

8 BIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY 8.1 ARISTOTLE THE ZOOLOGIST Although discussion has become more wide-ranging recently (see, for example, the magazine Biology and Philosophy, 1986 ff.), biology is not among the main interests of present-day philosophers; for Aristotle, however, it represents an important sector of empirical as well as theoretical natural science. Leaving botany to Theophrastus, he devoted the most extensive part of his writings to zoology (including biological anthropology or human biology). However, in turning toward zoology, he had to overcome an epistemic barrier: the Greeks, including Aristotle, believed that the realm of the stars ranked more highly than that of humans and animals. This attitude, which threatened to lead to the neglect of non-cosmological research into nature, is opposed by Aristotle’s famous plea in favor of a comprehensive natural science that values equally the various spheres (PA. I 5, 644b22–645a36). Whilst not upturning the usual ranking or putting cosmology last, he acknowledges zoology as equal using the three following arguments. According to the second of those, the superiority of cosmology is counterbalanced by familiarity: plants and animals are closer to humans than are the divine stars (645a2–4). According to the third argument, even the lowest animals have something admirable about them because of their functionality (645a4–26). However, the most important appears to be the first argument which is based on greater scientific profit (644b22–645a2). While the greater dignity of cosmological objects and the more intense joy involved in knowing them is not accompanied by a large quantity of material for observation (cf, Cael. II 12, 292a14 ff.), there is an abundance of the latter to be found in the investigation of plants and animals as long as one makes the necessary effort. According to Plato, observation only provides pleasure for the senses but does not achieve any true knowledge (Timaeus 28a). According to Aristotle, however, in biology not only pure theory is possible but so is an episkepsis, that is, an examination that interferes with its object and investigates its parts (blood, flesh, bones, etc.) more closely through dissection. Thus, for example, he twice describes the dissection of the hidden eyes of the blind mole (aspalae: HA I 9, 491b28; IV 8, 533a3). The remarkably precise description 85 of the octopus, including its particular form of reproduction, namely, hectocotylization , would appear to be based on dissection (IV 1, 524a3–20). True to his plea for epistemic equality, Aristotle is the founder of zoology not only as a scientific discipline: he distinguished several specialist spheres (general foundations, anatomy, physiology, behavioral studies, etc.) and composed monographs of high scientific standing on each of them. While, according to one historian of science, “the origin of modern biological thought consists partly in its emancipation from Platonic philosophy,” he can say that “no one living before Darwin has made a contribution to our understanding of the living world as great as that made by Aristotle. . . . Almost every branch of the history of biology needs to begin with Aristotle.” (E. Mayr, Die Entwicklung der biologischen Gedankenwelt , 1984, 73). Part of the texts has been lost, among them the seven books of the Anatomical Descriptions (Anatomai), but the most important texts have been preserved: On the Parts of Animals (PA) and the Zoology (History of Animals; HA), as well as On the Generation of Animals (GA), On the Progression of Animals (Peri poreias zôôn) and On the Motion of Animals (MA). Furthermore, there are the texts on biological psychology, the so-called Smaller Writings on Natural Science (Parva naturalia), which are of high quality despite their brevity. Among those are On Sense Perception and its Objects, On Memory and Remembrance, On Sleeping and Waking, and On Dreams. One could say that the treatise on memory is among the best ever written on the subject (see Meyer 1855 and more recently Balme 1972, Düring 1961, Gotthelf 1985, Gotthelf-Lennox 1987, and Kullmann 19792 ). Aristotle’s zoology is distinguished by such a wealth of observational data and such highly differentiated terminology that with good reason it was the foundation (together with the logic) of the philosopher’s actual fame for centuries. It was Darwin who once wrote enthusiastically that Aristotle is “one of the greatest observers, if not the greatest, who ever lived” (letter to Crawley, 12 February 1879). The surviving material is of such extent that it is hard to imagine that it was all produced by one person; one is inclined to believe the anecdote...