6.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aristotle's biology | 5/6 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_biology | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T16:11:59.770600+00:00 | kb-cron |
The book was mentioned by Al-Kindī (d. 850), and commented on by Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) in his Kitāb al-Šifā (کتاب الشفاء, The Book of Healing). Avempace (Ibn Bājja) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) commented on On the Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals, Averroes criticising Avempace's interpretations.
=== On medieval science ===
When the Christian king Alfonso VI of Castile conquered Toledo from the Moors in 1085, an Arabic translation of Aristotle's works, with commentaries by Avicenna and Averroes emerged into European medieval scholarship. Michael Scot translated much of Aristotle's biology into Latin, c. 1225, along with many of Averroes's commentaries. Albertus Magnus commented extensively on Aristotle, but added his own zoological observations and an encyclopedia of animals based on Thomas of Cantimpré. Later in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas merged Aristotle's metaphysics with Christian theology. Whereas Albert had treated Aristotle's biology as science, writing that experiment was the only safe guide and joining in with the types of observation that Aristotle had made, Aquinas saw Aristotle purely as theory, and Aristotelian thought became associated with scholasticism. The scholastic natural philosophy curriculum omitted most of Aristotle's biology, but included On the Soul.
=== On Renaissance science ===
Renaissance zoologists made use of Aristotle's zoology in two ways. Especially in Italy, scholars such as Pietro Pomponazzi and Agostino Nifo lectured and wrote commentaries on Aristotle. Elsewhere, authors used Aristotle as one of their sources, alongside their own and their colleagues' observations, to create new encyclopedias such as Konrad Gessner's 1551 Historia Animalium. The title and the philosophical approach were Aristotelian, but the work was largely new. Edward Wotton similarly helped to found modern zoology by arranging the animals according to Aristotle's theories, separating out folklore from his 1552 De differentiis animalium. Aristotle's system of classification had thus remained influential for many centuries.
=== Early Modern rejection ===
In the Early Modern period, Aristotle came to represent all that was obsolete, scholastic, and wrong, not helped by his association with medieval theology. In 1632, Galileo represented Aristotelianism in his Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) by the strawman Simplicio ("Simpleton"). That same year, William Harvey proved Aristotle wrong by demonstrating that blood circulates. Aristotle still represented the enemy of true science into the 20th century. Leroi noted that in 1985, Peter Medawar stated in "pure seventeenth century" tones that Aristotle had assembled "a strange and generally speaking rather tiresome farrago of hearsay, imperfect observation, wishful thinking and credulity amounting to downright gullibility".
=== 19th century revival === Zoologists working in the 19th century, including Georges Cuvier, Johannes Peter Müller, and Louis Agassiz admired Aristotle's biology and investigated some of his observations. D'Arcy Thompson translated History of Animals in 1910, making a classically educated zoologist's informed attempt to identify the animals that Aristotle names, and to interpret and diagram his anatomical descriptions. Charles Darwin quoted a passage from Aristotle's Physics II 8 in The Origin of Species, which entertains the possibility of a selection process following the random combination of body parts. Darwin comments that "We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth". However, two things mitigate against this interpretation. Firstly, Aristotle immediately rejected the possibility of such a process of assembling body parts. Secondly, according to Leroi, Aristotle was in any case discussing ontogeny, the Empedoclean coming into being of an individual from component parts, not phylogeny and natural selection. Darwin considered Aristotle the most important early contributor to biological thought; in an 1882 letter he wrote that "Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle."
=== 20th and 21st century interest ===
Zoologists have frequently mocked Aristotle for errors and unverified secondhand reports. However, modern observation has confirmed one after another of his more surprising claims, including the active camouflage of the octopus and the ability of elephants to snorkel with their trunks while swimming. Aristotle remains largely unknown to modern scientists, though zoologists are perhaps most likely to mention him as "the father of biology"; the MarineBio Conservation Society notes that he identified "crustaceans, echinoderms, mollusks, and fish", that cetaceans are mammals, and that marine vertebrates could be either oviparous or viviparous, so he "is often referred to as the father of marine biology". Few practicing zoologists explicitly adhere to Aristotle's great chain of being, but its influence is still perceptible in the use of the terms "lower" and "upper" to designate taxa such as groups of plants. The evolutionary zoologist Armand Leroi has taken an interest in Aristotle's biology. The concept of homology began with Aristotle, and the evolutionary developmental biologist Lewis I. Held commented that
The deep thinker who would be most amused by .. deep homologies is Aristotle, who was fascinated by the natural world but bewildered by its inner workings.
== Works == Aristotle did not write anything that resembles a modern, unified textbook of biology. Instead, he wrote a large number of "books" which, taken together, give an idea of his approach to the science. Some of these interlock, referring to each other, while others, such as the drawings of The Anatomies are lost, but referred to in the History of Animals, where the reader is instructed to look at the diagrams to understand how the animal parts described are arranged, and it has even been possible to reconstruct (admittedly with much associated uncertainty) what some of these illustrations may have looked like, from Aristotle's descriptions. Aristotle's main biological works are the five books sometimes grouped as On Animals (De Animalibus), namely, with the conventional abbreviations shown in parentheses: