What do you think?
Rate this book
Aristotle: On the Parts of Animals I-IV
In On the Parts of Animals , Aristotle develops his systematic principles for biological investigation and explanation, and applies those principles to explain why the different animals have the different parts that they do. This new translation and commentary reflects the subtlety and detail of Aristotle's reasoning.
420 pages, Paperback
First published September 7, 1972
7 people are currently reading
231 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,330 books5,591 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 17, 2021
The parts of animals, as Aristotle sees them, not only are of interest in themselves but also provide evidence of the beauty and intricacy of a harmonious natural order. Such are the impressions that emerge most strongly from a reading of Aristotle’s Parts of Animals.
As Aristotle studied and wrote about so many topics – analytics, ethics, metaphysics, physics, poetics, politics, rhetoric – it should be no surprise that he included within his areas of interest the field of animal physiology. In reviewing Aristotle’s observations and insights regarding these elements of zoology, one must consider the theoretical background within which Aristotle was working.
In Aristotle’s time, any biologist’s research-based observations would have to be balanced against the prevailing theories of his time. In contrast to the 118 elements that we recognize today, the scientists of classical Greece believed that there were just four elements – earth, air, fire, and water – joined by an intangible fifth element known as “aether.” Another general belief from Aristotle’s time held that four bodily fluids were associated with “humours” that affected the moods, outlooks, and health of humans and other animals, and could be linked with specific emotions – black bile (melancholy), blood (optimism), phlegm (reserved or “phlegmatic” behavior), and yellow bile (anger or “choler”).
These theoretical underpinnings regarding the four elements and the four humours do much to explain passages like one in which Aristotle states that "Such animals…as have thick and abundant fibres in their blood are of a more earthy nature, and of a choleric temperament, and liable to bursts of passion. For anger is productive of heat; and solids, when they have been made hot, give off more heat than fluids.” Aristotle goes on to provide an example: “This explains why bulls and boars are so choleric and so passionate. For their blood is exceedingly rich in fibres, and the bull’s at any rate coagulates more rapidly than that of any other animal…." (p. 31).
For Aristotle, form follows function, and Nature has arranged the parts of different animals in the manner that best facilitates that animal’s life-long work of surviving as long as possible and propagating its species. Aristotle insists that “nature makes the organs for the function, and not the function for the organs” (p. 120), and “nature never makes anything superfluous or void of use” (p. 122) Consider, in that context, Aristotle’s comments, within a larger disquisition of the purpose and function of the tongue generally, on the tongues of lizards and snakes specifically:
[I]n the serpents…and in the lizards [the tongue] is long and forked, so as to be suited for the perception of savours. So long indeed is this part in serpents, that though small while in the mouth it can be protruded to a great distance. In these same animals it is forked and has a fine and hair-like extremity, because of their great liking for dainty food. For by this arrangement they derive a twofold pleasure from savours, their gustatory sensation being as it were doubled. (p. 51)
It’s a fascinating passage – though I’m not at all certain that there’s a meaningful way for a contemporary herpetologist to measure how much a lizard or snake is enjoying its food.
Students of biology will no doubt enjoy the care and precision with which Aristotle anatomizes the parts of animals, both inner and outer, as when he talks about how the stomachs of different mammals are organized:
[T]he stomach is single in all such sanguineous and viviparous animals as have teeth in front of both jaws. It is single therefore in all the polydactylous kinds, such as man, dog, lion, and the rest; in all the solid-hoofed animals also, such as horse, mule, ass; and in all those which, like the pig, though their hoof is cloven, yet have front teeth in both jaws. When, however, an animal is of large size, and feeds on substances of so thorny and ligneous a character as to be difficult of concoction, it may in consequence have several stomachs, as for instance is the case with the camel. (p. 79)
In the latter part of the Parts of Animals, Aristotle places particular emphasis on his belief that nature arranges for every animal to have the organs, limbs, and other physical attributes that will best help it to survive. With his gift for figurative language - something that is often a surprise to first-time readers of Aristotle - the philosopher provides a vivid metaphor for what he believed was nature’s perfect and harmonious design:
[T]he invariable plan of nature in distributing the organs is to give each to such animal as can make use of it – nature acting in this manner as any prudent man would do. For it is a better plan to take a person who is already a flute-player and give him a flute, than to take one who possesses a flute and teach him the art of flute-playing (p. 107).
It is interesting to wonder how the application of Darwinian ideas regarding evolution and natural selection might have influenced Aristotle’s thinking regarding the parts of animals – specifically, his claims that Nature always designs the parts of animals in a way that best facilitates that animal’s efforts to survive. With the passage of time, and with further biological research, contemporary zoologists have helped us to see that the “well-designed” animal life we see around us stands in stark contrast to numerous species that don’t seem so “well-designed” – and that, in many cases, either have gone extinct or else totter on the edge of extinction.
In that connection, a 2014 article in Scientific American featured an interview with Mara Grunbaum, the author of a book and blog that share the title Evolution, WTF? Both the book and the blog focus on species with evolutionarily adapted traits that are so strange that they don’t speak to some sort of infallibility of Nature’s design – any more than they could be said to suggest the existence of an “intelligent designer.”
As Grunbaum put it in the interview, “We tend to think about evolution as adaptations—everything has evolved in a particular way because that is the way that it works best. To some extent that’s true, things do get more suited to their environment over time. But it’s also true that things happen randomly and are not necessarily the best way to do something if you were going to design it from scratch.”
The article’s author, Clara Moskowitz, elaborates further upon Grunbaum’s Evolution, WTF? ideas, suggesting that “animals such as the babirusa, the pignose frog and the flannel moth ‘puss’ caterpillar are so silly and unwieldy that they could not have been designed with efficiency, logic or aesthetics in mind. They remind us that natural selection preserves useful adaptations from random mutations, some of which are positively bizarre.”
It is interesting to wonder how Aristotle might have responded to these later ideas from the history of biological science. Indeed, I like to think that there might be some place beyond the boundaries of death where the great thinkers of history can gather and share their ideas – Aristotle and Charles Darwin talking about animal physiology, for instance. But, all such speculations aside, Aristotle’s Parts of Animals places the pre-eminent Greek philosopher at the beginning of the discourse about zoology – just as he started so many other scholarly conversations that are still of vital importance to us today.
As Aristotle studied and wrote about so many topics – analytics, ethics, metaphysics, physics, poetics, politics, rhetoric – it should be no surprise that he included within his areas of interest the field of animal physiology. In reviewing Aristotle’s observations and insights regarding these elements of zoology, one must consider the theoretical background within which Aristotle was working.
In Aristotle’s time, any biologist’s research-based observations would have to be balanced against the prevailing theories of his time. In contrast to the 118 elements that we recognize today, the scientists of classical Greece believed that there were just four elements – earth, air, fire, and water – joined by an intangible fifth element known as “aether.” Another general belief from Aristotle’s time held that four bodily fluids were associated with “humours” that affected the moods, outlooks, and health of humans and other animals, and could be linked with specific emotions – black bile (melancholy), blood (optimism), phlegm (reserved or “phlegmatic” behavior), and yellow bile (anger or “choler”).
These theoretical underpinnings regarding the four elements and the four humours do much to explain passages like one in which Aristotle states that "Such animals…as have thick and abundant fibres in their blood are of a more earthy nature, and of a choleric temperament, and liable to bursts of passion. For anger is productive of heat; and solids, when they have been made hot, give off more heat than fluids.” Aristotle goes on to provide an example: “This explains why bulls and boars are so choleric and so passionate. For their blood is exceedingly rich in fibres, and the bull’s at any rate coagulates more rapidly than that of any other animal…." (p. 31).
For Aristotle, form follows function, and Nature has arranged the parts of different animals in the manner that best facilitates that animal’s life-long work of surviving as long as possible and propagating its species. Aristotle insists that “nature makes the organs for the function, and not the function for the organs” (p. 120), and “nature never makes anything superfluous or void of use” (p. 122) Consider, in that context, Aristotle’s comments, within a larger disquisition of the purpose and function of the tongue generally, on the tongues of lizards and snakes specifically:
[I]n the serpents…and in the lizards [the tongue] is long and forked, so as to be suited for the perception of savours. So long indeed is this part in serpents, that though small while in the mouth it can be protruded to a great distance. In these same animals it is forked and has a fine and hair-like extremity, because of their great liking for dainty food. For by this arrangement they derive a twofold pleasure from savours, their gustatory sensation being as it were doubled. (p. 51)
It’s a fascinating passage – though I’m not at all certain that there’s a meaningful way for a contemporary herpetologist to measure how much a lizard or snake is enjoying its food.
Students of biology will no doubt enjoy the care and precision with which Aristotle anatomizes the parts of animals, both inner and outer, as when he talks about how the stomachs of different mammals are organized:
[T]he stomach is single in all such sanguineous and viviparous animals as have teeth in front of both jaws. It is single therefore in all the polydactylous kinds, such as man, dog, lion, and the rest; in all the solid-hoofed animals also, such as horse, mule, ass; and in all those which, like the pig, though their hoof is cloven, yet have front teeth in both jaws. When, however, an animal is of large size, and feeds on substances of so thorny and ligneous a character as to be difficult of concoction, it may in consequence have several stomachs, as for instance is the case with the camel. (p. 79)
In the latter part of the Parts of Animals, Aristotle places particular emphasis on his belief that nature arranges for every animal to have the organs, limbs, and other physical attributes that will best help it to survive. With his gift for figurative language - something that is often a surprise to first-time readers of Aristotle - the philosopher provides a vivid metaphor for what he believed was nature’s perfect and harmonious design:
[T]he invariable plan of nature in distributing the organs is to give each to such animal as can make use of it – nature acting in this manner as any prudent man would do. For it is a better plan to take a person who is already a flute-player and give him a flute, than to take one who possesses a flute and teach him the art of flute-playing (p. 107).
It is interesting to wonder how the application of Darwinian ideas regarding evolution and natural selection might have influenced Aristotle’s thinking regarding the parts of animals – specifically, his claims that Nature always designs the parts of animals in a way that best facilitates that animal’s efforts to survive. With the passage of time, and with further biological research, contemporary zoologists have helped us to see that the “well-designed” animal life we see around us stands in stark contrast to numerous species that don’t seem so “well-designed” – and that, in many cases, either have gone extinct or else totter on the edge of extinction.
In that connection, a 2014 article in Scientific American featured an interview with Mara Grunbaum, the author of a book and blog that share the title Evolution, WTF? Both the book and the blog focus on species with evolutionarily adapted traits that are so strange that they don’t speak to some sort of infallibility of Nature’s design – any more than they could be said to suggest the existence of an “intelligent designer.”
As Grunbaum put it in the interview, “We tend to think about evolution as adaptations—everything has evolved in a particular way because that is the way that it works best. To some extent that’s true, things do get more suited to their environment over time. But it’s also true that things happen randomly and are not necessarily the best way to do something if you were going to design it from scratch.”
The article’s author, Clara Moskowitz, elaborates further upon Grunbaum’s Evolution, WTF? ideas, suggesting that “animals such as the babirusa, the pignose frog and the flannel moth ‘puss’ caterpillar are so silly and unwieldy that they could not have been designed with efficiency, logic or aesthetics in mind. They remind us that natural selection preserves useful adaptations from random mutations, some of which are positively bizarre.”
It is interesting to wonder how Aristotle might have responded to these later ideas from the history of biological science. Indeed, I like to think that there might be some place beyond the boundaries of death where the great thinkers of history can gather and share their ideas – Aristotle and Charles Darwin talking about animal physiology, for instance. But, all such speculations aside, Aristotle’s Parts of Animals places the pre-eminent Greek philosopher at the beginning of the discourse about zoology – just as he started so many other scholarly conversations that are still of vital importance to us today.
July 23, 2020
(4*s) I only read Book I and the first chapter of Book II, those included in "The Basic Works of Aristotle," edited by Richard McKeon.
I suggest those planning to read this treatise read Book II of Physics and On the Soul to learn about Aristotle's conception of the four causes (material, formal, motor or effective, and final or teleological) and his division of the soul (vegetative, sensitive, and rational).
I found it interesting how Aristotle emphasized studying not only the material causes (what each organ is composed of) but also the teleological causes (what each organ is made for). Function dictates form, as the architects say. In fact, isn't our body an architecture, possibly one of the most complex architectures available in the universe?
Also, Aristotle's defense of why one should study the animals is fascinating. Because ancient Greeks held greater importance on things eternal, studies such as astronomy and geometry were popular, while those focusing on the earthly matters (like biology) wasn't. However, appealing to the unerring teleological design of Nature, Aristotle claims the following:
Great read!
I suggest those planning to read this treatise read Book II of Physics and On the Soul to learn about Aristotle's conception of the four causes (material, formal, motor or effective, and final or teleological) and his division of the soul (vegetative, sensitive, and rational).
I found it interesting how Aristotle emphasized studying not only the material causes (what each organ is composed of) but also the teleological causes (what each organ is made for). Function dictates form, as the architects say. In fact, isn't our body an architecture, possibly one of the most complex architectures available in the universe?
Also, Aristotle's defense of why one should study the animals is fascinating. Because ancient Greeks held greater importance on things eternal, studies such as astronomy and geometry were popular, while those focusing on the earthly matters (like biology) wasn't. However, appealing to the unerring teleological design of Nature, Aristotle claims the following:
Absence of haphazard and conduciveness of everything to an end are to be found in Nature’s works in the highest degree, and the resultant end of her generations and combinations is a form of the beautiful.Also, Aristotle is correct in saying that “the principal object of natural philosophy is not the material elements, but their composition, and the totality of the form, independently of which they have no existence.”
Great read!
January 17, 2019
Aristóteles dá continuidade ao seu "história dos animais" aqui, mas inicia com um foco mais filosófico do que biológico, diferenciando a sua teoria das 4 causas quando aplicado a seres vivos, em relação à aplicação de coisas inanimadas. Não entendi o motivo de não achar esse livro traduzido, em meio físico, para o português, me parece de importância até superior à "história dos animais", em dois volumes, da mesma tradutora.
Diz que a palavra "natureza" pode ter as acepções tanto de "matéria" quanto de "essência", comportando esta última o princípio motor e a finalidade, e que é graças à alma que a matéria se torna natureza, e não o contrário. Critica-se a análise dicotômica que Platão faz para categorizar as coisas, que também achei cômica quando li.
A partir do livro 2 o que se segue são diversas observações acerca das partes dos animais, levando em conta os 4 elementos, sua teoria da compensação dos contrários e as causas finais da existência das partes. Tem algumas curiosidades como "o cérebro é composto de terra", não conhecer o sistema circulatório e coisas afins, mas nada que desperte muito o meu interesse por esse tratado, além do gigantesco escopo de conhecimento de Aristóteles, já citado em outras avaliações, e também da boa percepção de causa e efeito demonstrado ao longo do texto, como refutações à Anaxagoras.
Diz que a palavra "natureza" pode ter as acepções tanto de "matéria" quanto de "essência", comportando esta última o princípio motor e a finalidade, e que é graças à alma que a matéria se torna natureza, e não o contrário. Critica-se a análise dicotômica que Platão faz para categorizar as coisas, que também achei cômica quando li.
A partir do livro 2 o que se segue são diversas observações acerca das partes dos animais, levando em conta os 4 elementos, sua teoria da compensação dos contrários e as causas finais da existência das partes. Tem algumas curiosidades como "o cérebro é composto de terra", não conhecer o sistema circulatório e coisas afins, mas nada que desperte muito o meu interesse por esse tratado, além do gigantesco escopo de conhecimento de Aristóteles, já citado em outras avaliações, e também da boa percepção de causa e efeito demonstrado ao longo do texto, como refutações à Anaxagoras.
May 1, 2020
This is a very hard book to rate. In the preface Ogle writes about ‘Parts of Animals’ that ‘the simple Aristotelian has been deterred by a subject-matter, as a rule alien to his tastes’. That is correct for me, where Books 2-4 of this volume are almost purely biology instead of philosophy and as such not really in my wheelhouse. Adding to the problem is the biology is of a time so long ago that it really is a curiosity rather than a source of wisdom. Book one of this work is different however, being armchair philosophy of the highest order, rivaling anything in ‘Physics’ or ‘Metaphysics’.
I probably would have got more out of the New Hackett edition from Reeve: ‘Generation of Animals, History of Animals I & Parts of Animals I’ to be honest, as I have enjoyed that series. For me the Books 2-4 not found in Reeve, but which we’re here in Ogle, were not relevant to my interests and I found myself skimming through them and not taking a great deal in.
Aristotle, however, remains a firm favourite of mine and an absolute genius so do consider reading for the first section alone.
I probably would have got more out of the New Hackett edition from Reeve: ‘Generation of Animals, History of Animals I & Parts of Animals I’ to be honest, as I have enjoyed that series. For me the Books 2-4 not found in Reeve, but which we’re here in Ogle, were not relevant to my interests and I found myself skimming through them and not taking a great deal in.
Aristotle, however, remains a firm favourite of mine and an absolute genius so do consider reading for the first section alone.
October 30, 2020
In that age, surely this writing is a fascinated one. I dont know if the translation was true or not. But the translator using many modern classification, like genus, crustaceae, chepalopods, etc. If this words already being used in that time, then the ancient people surely has a keen observations already.
October 23, 2017
As I don't have much education in Life Science, I was really impressed with this by Aristotle. The more I've read him, the easier it is for me to understand him. Recommended!
September 15, 2024
Estaba interesado en el libro I y es lo que he leído, el resto lo he mirado por encima. El libro 1 es muy bueno y muy recomendado.
April 19, 2025
interesting seeing historical thought on biology
July 20, 2025
cool to see the world of biology from someone’s eyes from a couple millennia ago
January 29, 2012
Aristotle starts this treatise with the following words:
"Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability."
This idea corresponds well to Confucius's idea of an educated gentleman. It makes me think of the magnificent minds of the American Revolution, IE: Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson. It also embodies the spirit of a true liberal arts or classical education.
Aristotle wasn't just giving lip service to this idea of an educated man, he was this type of man. I'll not discuss his many other works here. Instead, I wish to hi-light a few of the ideas that I took from reading this particular work in which Aristotle tackled the weighty task of classifying animal life.
I borrow a summary (found at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/...) of Aristotle's system of classification:
"Aristotle's classification of animals grouped together animals with similar characters into genera (used in a much broader sense than present-day biologists use the term) and then distinguished the species within the genera. He divided the animals into two types: those with blood, and those without blood (or at least without red blood). These distinctions correspond closely to our distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates. The blooded animals, corresponding to the vertebrates, included five genera: viviparous quadrupeds (mammals), birds, oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians), fishes, and whales (which Aristotle did not realize were mammals). The bloodless animals were classified as cephalopods (such as the octopus); crustaceans; insects (which included the spiders, scorpions, and centipedes, in addition to what we now define as insects); shelled animals (such as most molluscs and echinoderms); and "zoophytes," or "plant-animals," which supposedly resembled plants in their form -- such as most cnidarians."
I noticed the following rules in Aristotle's method:
-Body structure, parts, organ location and function, an much more is determined by "nobility." Lesser animals are given lesser faculties and tools. Upper parts are superior to lower, right to left, and front to back. One example is the heart - the most honorable organ of them all; therefore, it is place in a position of honor. This position is slightly higher and anterior to the center of the body.
-Nature makes no things superfluous or in vain.
-Nature gives tools to those best suited to use them.
-Nature makes organs for the function, not function for the organs.
-Nature adds lesser parts to greater beings rather than greater parts to lesser beings.
-In Book 4, part 10, we read, "For of all animals man alone stands erect, in accordance with his godlike nature and essence. For it is the function of the god-like to think and to be wise;" Man is the most noble of creatures, because he is created in God's image. I think part of this is that man has a divine purpose.
My list is not exhaustive. I feel it inadequately explains things that I inadequately identified, but it is my starting point to wrap my head around the great mind of Aristotle. I highly recommend the link I posted earlier. It reviews more than just this work and sheds additional light on Aristotle's methods and philosophy.
"Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability."
This idea corresponds well to Confucius's idea of an educated gentleman. It makes me think of the magnificent minds of the American Revolution, IE: Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson. It also embodies the spirit of a true liberal arts or classical education.
Aristotle wasn't just giving lip service to this idea of an educated man, he was this type of man. I'll not discuss his many other works here. Instead, I wish to hi-light a few of the ideas that I took from reading this particular work in which Aristotle tackled the weighty task of classifying animal life.
I borrow a summary (found at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/...) of Aristotle's system of classification:
"Aristotle's classification of animals grouped together animals with similar characters into genera (used in a much broader sense than present-day biologists use the term) and then distinguished the species within the genera. He divided the animals into two types: those with blood, and those without blood (or at least without red blood). These distinctions correspond closely to our distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates. The blooded animals, corresponding to the vertebrates, included five genera: viviparous quadrupeds (mammals), birds, oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians), fishes, and whales (which Aristotle did not realize were mammals). The bloodless animals were classified as cephalopods (such as the octopus); crustaceans; insects (which included the spiders, scorpions, and centipedes, in addition to what we now define as insects); shelled animals (such as most molluscs and echinoderms); and "zoophytes," or "plant-animals," which supposedly resembled plants in their form -- such as most cnidarians."
I noticed the following rules in Aristotle's method:
-Body structure, parts, organ location and function, an much more is determined by "nobility." Lesser animals are given lesser faculties and tools. Upper parts are superior to lower, right to left, and front to back. One example is the heart - the most honorable organ of them all; therefore, it is place in a position of honor. This position is slightly higher and anterior to the center of the body.
-Nature makes no things superfluous or in vain.
-Nature gives tools to those best suited to use them.
-Nature makes organs for the function, not function for the organs.
-Nature adds lesser parts to greater beings rather than greater parts to lesser beings.
-In Book 4, part 10, we read, "For of all animals man alone stands erect, in accordance with his godlike nature and essence. For it is the function of the god-like to think and to be wise;" Man is the most noble of creatures, because he is created in God's image. I think part of this is that man has a divine purpose.
My list is not exhaustive. I feel it inadequately explains things that I inadequately identified, but it is my starting point to wrap my head around the great mind of Aristotle. I highly recommend the link I posted earlier. It reviews more than just this work and sheds additional light on Aristotle's methods and philosophy.
February 25, 2014
Parts of Animals by Aristotle and translated into English by William Ogle is an ancient anatomical text. The book like much of Aristotle is a combination of very accurate elements with things that we with modern science consider completely ridiculous. The work starts by explaining the process of science and an explanation of why the work is needed. In this section he explains that science is after figuring out both why things occur and how they occur because one or the other only gives half of the picture that science needs to solve. After explaining his matter he goes on to describe the elements which make up the animal body. He begins with the main elements of water, fire, earth and air but soon advances past them into their combined forms of hot and cold and fluid and solid. Out of these four he describes how the homogenous parts of the body are formed. He states that everything in the body begins with blood which he believes is transformed into each of the other elements of the body. Fat which is the second substance he describes coming out of excess heat in the blood which causes it to congeal into that substance. Marrow is the remainder of the blood left after it changes into bone. The brain is almost the opposite as it is the cool element of the body which balances out the heat of the blood. He believes all things need balance and his explanation of the brain is that it is what balances out the heat of the heart and the soul and allows life in animals with blood. After he finished going through all of components of the body he begins describing the different organs of the body, from the flesh to the arms and legs. After discussing the flesh he goes on to describe the different parts of the head including the brain, the eyes, the nose, the ears and the mouth. His description covers all of the animals that he can think of and he attempts to show why the differences exist between the different animals. After this he deals with the internal organs of the heart, liver, kidneys, lung, the diaphragm of the chest, the stomach and the intestines. It is obvious that he was present at multiple dissections as his understanding of these parts shows some first hand knowledge. He finishes off by describing the limbs of the multiple animals and how they vary between the different types of animals. Reading this I am struck by how much of his method of organization we still use even today in science. I found the work accurate on most of the large scale elements while it was very inaccurate at the small scale and where he believed the facts might disagree with his theories.
May 18, 2013
We find here a basic, logical look at the structures of animals. Aristotle refutes Empedocles, that traits are entirely incidental, and Democritus, that shape and color constitute the whole animal. We then read about the classification, that bifurcation will never be sufficient to categorize the differentiations. Instead, fundamental groupings are sought based on feathers, scales, spine, etc. Next we read about homogenous parts: heart, skin, blood, lard, suet, semen, fat, shells, and visceral organs. We also read about natural accounting for differences, such as ears in quadrapeds vs. brids, teeth, and even the differences in bird beaks that Darwin popularized 1800 years later. Of course, there are some unproved assertions, such as that nature takes from the teeth of horned animals to make the horns -- a bit immature, but not for the BC thinker.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews