vs. Order: Aristotle and Linnaeus

Jonathan Bastian Phil 223: History of Science & Metaphysics with Dr. Griffith

axonomy is man’s attempt to understand his method against modern methods and sci- Tthe organizational structure of living organ- ence. No one can fully understand another isms. It originates from the idea that there is a person’s thought process, and therefore, we supreme being who created everything and, cannot make assumptions regarding a phi- therefore, a perfect organization to living or- losopher’s methods. Yet, if there is a desire, ganisms must exist. With their own distinct whether out of necessity or pure casual inter- opinions on how should be classi- est, to understand the development of mod- fied, philosophers and scientists alike have at- ern science, one must look at and analyze tempted to make the perfect arrangement the ideas and beliefs of the first scientists--phi- of organisms. These methods are all derived losophers or others--to the best of our ability. from previous methods; hence, we must look Whether modern science confirms it or dis- at Aristotle and Linnaeus for guidance and to putes it, all modern conclusions and scientific compare what they thought to what mod- philosophies have been influenced by those ern science appears to tell us regarding the earliest thinkers. relationship between organisms. Linnaeus’ An extensive component of a phi- simplistic system of organization is a clear ad- losopher’s thoughts is definition. Yet what is vancement from the hectic system of Aristo- definition but merely man’s attempt - atus tle. ing words to describe another word? This To formulate a conclusion of Aristotle’s creates an endless process of attempting method is in some regards quite dif- to find the definition of a word and then the ficult. The philosopher died 2,331 years ago; definition of each word in the first definition. consequently, he cannot continue to defend However, Aristotle developed definitions of

Schemata | Spring 2010 Spring | Schemata

are used, which means that feathers, scales, scales, feathers, that means which used, are animal. blooded laying, egg an is bird a ing

Moreover, generic differentiae differentiae generic Moreover, time. a at one - mean viviparous, and laying egg into vided

1

divided multiple times simultaneously and not not and simultaneously times multiple divided - di further be can animals Blooded bloodless.

issue of a dichotomy where a must be be must genus a where dichotomy a of issue and blooded into divided be can animal an

The third rule goes back to the the to back goes rule third The one. previous example, an As method. a such utilizing to es

1 1

where each differentia is an addition to the the to addition an is differentia each where - consequenc logical severe were there lieved

rule was “successive differentiation,” which is is which differentiation,” “successive was rule -

iiin hr ae w otos Aitte be Aristotle options. two are there division The second second The qualities.” are differentiae while every for words, other In time. a at statement

1

First, a “Genus is in the category of substance, substance, of category the in is “Genus a First, comparative one only using of process a is

used to organize his taxonomy of organisms. organisms. of taxonomy his organize to used dichotomy using organization of method The

ously. There were three rules which Aristotle Aristotle which rules three were There ously. organisms. distinguish to ability system’s the on

- simultane differentiae three least at are there limitations put organisms organize to chotomy

chotomy system, he devised a system in which which in system a devised he system, chotomy - di a of use the believed he writings, istotle’s

- di the with disagreed Aristotle Since - Ar of interpretation the to According

them. nize and categorize different organisms. different categorize and nize

2

ing organisms, but also defining or describing describing or defining also but organisms, ing - orga better can we therefore and organisms,

method of not only organizing and compar and organizing only not of method us helps us better understand the design of of design the understand better us helps us -

final statement means that a definiendum is a is definiendum a that means statement final edge which modern science has revealed to to revealed has science modern which edge

el h ojc’ ntr o substance.” or nature object’s the veal - knowl the organization, of method Aristotle’s The

1

ganism. Additionally, a definiendum must “re must definiendum a Additionally, ganism. similarities with other organisms. In defense of of defense In organisms. other with similarities -

acteristics or differentiae which defines an or an defines which differentiae or acteristics is the fact that living organisms have many many have organisms living that fact the is -

fins, or forelegs. A definiendum is a set of char of set a is definiendum A forelegs. or fins, ural kinds. The reason behind this statement statement this behind reason The kinds. ural -

nition would be limbs, whether they are wings, wings, are they whether limbs, be would nition - nat split never system a if created be would

An example of this defi this of example An another.” from entity bloodless. Also, labyrinth-like organization organization labyrinth-like Also, bloodless. -

1

particular element or feature that defines one one defines that feature or element particular organize his taxonomy, such as blooded and and blooded as such taxonomy, his organize

tia is defined in the context of Aristotle as, “A “A as, Aristotle of context the in defined is tia the problem lies in the differentiae he uses to to uses he differentiae the in lies problem the

It is true that dichotomy splits organisms, but but organisms, splits dichotomy that true is It - differen The determined. be must ferentia

his argument has validity to a certain degree. degree. certain a to validity has argument his - dif the for properties, and characteristics as

The supporting example of of example supporting The side.” each on such information, detailed requires step ond

2

since there would have to be some of each each of some be to have would there since - sec The etc. insect, fish, bird, a is it if termines

into blooded/bloodless or polypod/footless, polypod/footless, or blooded/bloodless into - de generalization This it?” is kind “What ing,

then we cannot go on to divide either side side either divide to on go cannot we then - mean taken, be must picture broad a First,

we divide animals into terrestrial and aquatic, aquatic, and terrestrial into animals divide we process. two-step a required something fining

his point: “Dichotomy splits natural kinds. If If kinds. natural splits “Dichotomy point: his - de philosophy, his on Based defined. be to

totle used the following example to defend defend to example following the used totle had first it something, classify to order in that

young, but birds cannot be viviparous. be cannot birds but young, felt Aristotle organisms. of classification derly - Aris

1 1

birds are either egg laying or give birth to live live to birth give or laying egg either are birds - or an is taxonomy of definition modern The

animals are egg laying or viviparous, then then viviparous, or laying egg are animals taxonomy. called something into organisms

sic logic. If a bird is a blooded animal and and animal blooded a is bird a If logic. sic arranging of method or structure organized

The logical arguments arise by following ba following by arise arguments logical The an create to attempt an in words numerous - and hair are all one differentiae based on anatomy of those organisms where they were the outer surface of the . By using his similar. Whether these groups of similar char- three rules, he determined that the best way acteristics were used in the organization of to compare organisms is by analyzing four dif- species, no one will know. The important prin- ferent classes of characteristics: body parts, ciple of his taxonomy structure is that he used life histories, actions, and disposition or psy- categories to organize and group organisms chology. By using those characteristics, an based on similarities. optimal scientific picture of an organism could Understandably thought provoking, be created. Once a complete definiendum the properties that Aristotle used to compare is determined for an organism, each living organisms are quite peculiar and for some, thing is placed into one of ten main groups rather ludicrous. In the History of Animals, Aris- or categories: man, viviparous quadrupeds, totle states, “Animals differ from one another oviparous quadrupeds, birds, fishes, ceta- in their modes of subsistence, in their actions, ceans, molluscs, crustaceans, testaceans, or in their habits, and in their parts.”3 When this insects.1 The first six are in the larger category statement is taken out of context, it is a valid of blooded and the last four are in the larger statement. However, by using an organism’s category of bloodless.1 Though vague, the habits as a method of comparative organiza- understanding of intermediate differentiae is tion, there are no definitive and unchanging that it encompasses many categories with- habits of a species of organisms. As individu- out direct order. Based on a comparative re- als and species adapt and evolve to live in view of numerous scholarly resources and the adverse conditions, their habits change. Ad- conclusions of the author, the organizational ditionally, the organizational pattern does not structure of Aristotle’s taxonomy includes a appear suited to organize millions of species genus and multiple differentiae. in one universal method. However, the primi- Multiple differentiae was Aristotle’s tive scientific knowledge of organisms greatly method of using categories to organize or- limited Aristotle in his ability to understand the ganisms. However, the issue of defining mul- relationship between organisms. tiple differentiae is difficult and subjective As years progressed and knowledge of according to a person’s conclusions on inter- the scientific field expanded, the methods of pretations. Within Aristotle’s works regarding organizing organisms became clearer and this subject, he makes mention of numerous easier. Additionally, the knowledge gained groups of organisms. However, what is not allowed the entire system to be greatly simpli- clear is whether these groups were meant to fied. A Swedish man, Carolus Linnaeus, was be a sub-genus classification. Moreover, it is born in 1707 as a poor man. He was a religious challenging to differentiate between notes man and one who strongly supported his cre- about organisms he dissected and notes per- ationist beliefs. These beliefs carried through taining to his method of taxonomy. Accord- into his development of a classification sys- ing to his records, he dissected hundreds of tem for organisms. He began his career as a organisms and recorded thousands of ob- medical doctor, but the love and fascination servations by investigating the comparative of caused him to become consumed Philosophy by the world of plants. He soon began to no- standards. Yet, in Linnaeus’ later writings he tice a hierarchy within organisms, especially discussed the issue of flexibility by declaring plants.4 that species have a lot of variation and there His system ignored slight variations within are many factors which cause this variation, species and instead used the “perfect speci- such as soil conditions. He also accepted men” to enable him to organize his system. the fact that hybridization between two dif- Linnaeus was influenced by John Ray, a natu- ferent species is possible. This long enduring ralist who died a few years before Linnaeus’ system has apparently been flexible enough birth. Carolus disagreed with Ray more than to withstand hundreds of years of tests against he agreed with him, but knowledge of the de- modern science. Nevertheless, Linnaeus was ceased naturalist helped Linnaeus to develop not content with his system and made futile a more perfected system by looking at other attempts at developing alternative methods systems which had flaws in them. Linnaeus without success. He also developed the cur- concluded that the ideal distinguishing char- rent naming system of using the genus and acteristic is the behavior of the fruit on plants. species by using the Latin terms. The majority By using the position of the fruit on a , of criticism has since left as the biological field he developed 1,000 genera by which plants sees how adaptable his system was to new could be grouped. He then grouped genera and different species. or genus into “ordos” or orders based on the The development of a taxonomy struc- number of female flower parts. Next, the or- ture from Aristotle to Linnaeus is quite clear. ders were grouped into 24 classes based on The simplistic yet comprehensive system of the number of male flower parts. By using the Linnaeus makes up for the hectic and selec- four level hierarchy system, not only did he tive system of Aristotle. The inability to directly classify thousands of plants, but he also classi- compare the two great biologists is the fact fied 4,235 species of animals.4 that they lived two thousand years apart. We He also developed the broader picture cannot compare the knowledge and the phi- of a classification system. He believed that losophies of these two without giving them the there were three kingdoms: animals, plants, same knowledge of plants and animals. The and minerals. The idea of minerals being part advancement in the understanding of these of the overall system was from the influence organisms had exponential growth. Having of Aristotle. He stated, “‘The whole world, ani- stated this, we must also look at the influence mate and inanimate, must stand in some nat- which Aristotle had on Linnaeus. First, Linnae- ural order as a hierarchy.’ (Systema Natura, us was able to study these historical methods 1758).”4 The animals were part of six classes: and look that the flaws based on the current Mammalia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, knowledge of organisms. Additionally, Lin- and Vermes.4 The rather simple method of or- naeus did use some of Aristotle’s ideas, in- ganization received both criticism and praise. cluding the idea of minerals being part of the Most of the criticism derived from the organizational structure. lack of flexibility in adding new organisms and species which do not follow typical biological Schemata | Spring 2010 References

1. Balme, D. M. “Aristotle’s Use of Differentiae in Zoology.” Articles on Aristotle. Ed. J. Barnes, M. Schofield, and R. Sorabji. Vol. 1. London: Gerald Duckworth & Company, 1975. 183-193. Print. 2. ___. “Aristotle’s Use of Division and Differentiae.” Philosophical Issues in Aristo- tle’s Biology. Ed. A. Gotthelf and J. G. Len- nox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 69-89. Print. 3. Smith, R. “Logic.” The Cambridge Com- panion to Aristotle. Ed. J. Barnes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 51-57. Print. 4. Samuel, E. Order: in Life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. 23-30. Print.

*Title art by Cristi Beeler

Philosophy