In Defense of Aristotle's Biocosmology as the Comprehensive Supersystem of Knowledge: Eight Critical Comments on the Article of M. Benetatou (original) (raw)
Related papers
2008
Philosophy is a science and therefore, like every other science, it seeks to establish truths that have been strictly proved and are therefore binding for every thinking being and not only for a particular people or nation.-N.O. Lossky (1951, p. 402). Introduction At the very beginning, responding to the article of Arthur Saniotis ("A Reconnaissance of the Cosmos: A Critical Response to Konstantin S. Khroutski's BioCosmology"; EJAIB 18, March 2008, pp. 52-56) I would like to thank the author and underline a high quality of his critical analysis of BioCosmology. Saniotis has carried out really a substantive, interesting, thoughtful and productive analysis that yield the results of new original propositions, as well as the elucidation of further possible areas for future discussion in the realm of holistic thinking. At the same time, Saniotis chiefly concentrates his attention on my first (of the year 2006) article, published in the section BioCosmology, of the on-line journal E-Logos: Electronic Journal for Philosophy (http://nb.vse.cz/kfil/elogos/). The title of this article is "BioCosmology-Science of the Universal Future" and, of course, it has a basic significance. However, my second article (also published in the section BioCosmology)-"Arousing a Dispute over BioCosmology. A Reply to Stephen Modell"-likewise should be read carefully, moreover, this is precisely the work that originates the discussion over BioCosmology. The main peculiarity of this text is that it establishes a vector of comparative analysis of BioCosmology with the philosophy of Aristotle. Crudely speaking, the essence of BioCosmology is the rehabilitation of Aristotelian "bio-" (organic, whole, hierarchical) cosmos, in which every (living) entity has its inherent place and destination in the one whole organic selfevolving cosmic world. Substantially, the perspective of comparative relation to Aristotle's philosophy (pertaining to the critical analysis and development of BioCosmology) was set by Stephen Modell in his previous critical response (Modell, 2006). In fact, Modell has grasped the substantial point-the true trajectory of the discussion on BioCosmology lies in the realm of rehabilitation and reconsideration (while
In the 1620, Francis Bacon (1561–1626), in his famous " Novum Organum " concluded that scientific gentlemen (of his time) were under " the spell of antiquity, of authors and of consent " , which had " so shackled men's courage that (as if bewitched) they have been unable to get close to things themselves. " 2 At the present time, remarkably, we have the similar situation, but of inverse significance – when men of science are under constant pressure from the impacts of modern scientific establishment (already of Baconian essence, i.e. modern authorities and implied consent are fully consistent with " the new scientific method "), and which currently completely suppress and shackle the courage of contemporary learned scholars who (" as if bewitched ") are unable " to get close to things themselves ". We now imply (under " things themselves ") and refer to the unacceptable loss of Aristotle's Organicist naturalism, and emphasize the urgent need, in our time of crises – to reinstate Aristotle's comprehensive OrganonKosmology and re-establish the genuine language of Stagirite's Organicist naturalism archetype. For that, we, in the Biocosmological Association (BCA) – develop the Triadological approach of scholarly endeavors, and, in this work – try to shed light at the three cornerstones (key issues; but, in general, their number is greater): 1) that Aristotle's philosophy is the self-dependent OrganonKosmology and the archetype of Organicist rationality; 2) that Aristotle's philosophy has its own language and the apparatus of indispensable notions, terms and concepts; 3) and stressing the cornerstone significance of Aristotle's notion entelecheia, which cannot be translated as " actuality " .
Reason Papers, 2013
Although readers of Reason Papers are no doubt familiar with Allan Gotthelf's extensive efforts aimed at a more widespread appreciation of Ayn Rand's philosophical thought, he is best known among historians of philosophy and science for his contributions to the understanding of Aristotle's biological works, which have shed much light on Aristotle's scientific methodology, epistemology, and metaphysics. Two new books allow us to take account of Gotthelf's contributions to Aristotelian studies. The first is a collection of Gotthelf's most important papers on Aristotle. 1 Although the papers were written independently, there is little superfluous repetition, and taken together they constitute a comprehensive and coherent account of Aristotle's biology and its philosophical significance. The second, which has its origin in a 2004 conference in Gotthelf's honor, is a collection of papers on Aristotle, most of which focus on themes that Gotthelf himself has discussed. 2 Some of the papers further his thought, taking it in new directions; others depart from Gotthelf in philosophically interesting ways. Gotthelf believes that one of his most important contributions to Aristotelian studies lies in his account of teleology in the biological writings. For this he gives credit to Rand (p. viii) (who personally led Gotthelf to the study of Aristotle), for she had argued that scientific explanation must identify potentials inherent in natures. This was in contrast to the predominant empiricist strategy of taking explanation to be a matter of subsuming an
The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle’s Biology (proofs)
“The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle’s Biology”, in Sophia M. Connell (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2021, 30-45
Focusing on the predecessors of Aristotle’s biological inquiries, this chapter sketches a broad picture of their ideas about the origin and development of living beings. To this picture it adds a few introductory remarks on the new cosmological and metaphysical framework of Aristotle’s biological enterprise and, by the same token, on the reasons why, for Aristotle, the living creatures around us are worthy of a true philosophical interest. The structure of this chapter is also dictated by the impossibility of covering, in a very limited space, all of Aristotle’s predecessors without reducing them to encyclopedia-like entries. Hence the choice of a perspective that enables us to grasp what truly distinguishes Aristotle from the Presocratics and Plato: his rejection of a shared causal story that would account for both the origin of the universe and the birth of animals and plants. This perspective helps to make intelligible Aristotle’s rejection of hylozoism (including its Anaxagorean variety) and also of the opposite view that life arises (in an ultimately mysterious way) from inanimate material ingredients. Concerning the Presocratics, my necessarily selective treatment will stress the recurrent connection, in their fragments, between biological matters and cosmogony. This connection will then invite us to take a fresh look at how Plato reshapes it and how Aristotle changes it entirely, even in relation to Plato himself. In this way, the chapter enables us to evaluate, in its final section, the changes that Aristotle brings to the study of living beings, including his rejection of the previous ideas of the progressive formation of living species.
Aristotle's Biocosmology - Teleological Functionalist Naturalism - as the Type of Rationality
2016
The author strongly urges to rehabilitate the genuine significance of Aristotle's supersystem of knowledge as the autonomic (one of the Three) Type of rationality - Type of (Bio)cosmology. First and foremost, we need to reinstate the true meaning of Aristotle's Organicistic (Four-causal) aetiology, wherein all Four causes are telic (teleodriven): hyletic (which is called nowadays as "material"); organic or morphogenetic ("formal"); generative ("efficient"); telic or Functionalist ("final"). As we substantiate, modern perception (and conventional apprehension) of "material" and "formal" causes, as well as the removal of telic causes from modern scientific environment demonstrates a bad misinterpretation of Aristotle's (Bio)cosmology - the (super)system of scholarly Organicist knowledge - and the autonomic atemporal (one of the Three) Type of rationality (of Functionalist naturalism). Likewise, an attempt is to in...
ABSTRACT. This article has focused on the Aristotelian philosophy from which I have sketched some traits of biocentrism. Through the discussion, I have tried to defend the view that the state of having life is central to biocentrism. As such, I have shown that Aristotle is one of the best instances of the biocentric outlook. In the context of contemporary environmental philosophy, the biocentric worldview has been accepted as a life-based notion. It rejects the view of anthropocentrism. In addition, Aristotle has made another contribution with regard to the processing of matter and the flow of life, which is based on evolutionary biological grounds. This article has also shown that we should choose to receive the Aristotelian concept of biocentrism.
Introduction and Table of Contents for Theory and Practice in Aristotle's Natural Science
Theory and Practice in Aristotle's Natural Science, 2015
Aristotle argued that in theory one could acquire knowledge of the natural world. But he did not simply provide a theoretical account of how to do this; he put his theories into practice. This volume shows how Aristotle’s natural science and philosophical theories shed light on one another. The contributors engage with Aristotle’s biological and non-biological scientific works and with a wide variety of his theoretical works, including Physics, Generation and Corruption, On the Soul, and Posterior Analytics. The chapters focus on a number of themes, including the sort of explanation provided by matter; the relationship between matter, teleology, and necessity; cosmic teleology; how an organism’s soul and faculties relate to its end; how to define things such as sleep, void, and soul; and the proper way to make scientific judgments. The resulting volume offers a rich and integrated view of Aristotle’s science and shows how it fits with his larger philosophical theories.