Abstract
Aristotle often claims that some animal kinds “dualise” between two opposite groups (e. g., terrestrial and aquatic, or biped and quadruped), i. e. that they belong “to both and to neither”. This claim is paradoxical since it appears to attribute incompatible features to the same kind. Some scholars have therefore suggested that, for Aristotle, dualisers are not an objective phenomenon, but rather a misleading appearance that depends of the ambiguity of terms like “aquatic”. Others have argued that Aristotle’s classifications contain overlaps because they are not meant to capture an essentialist hierarchy of kinds. I show that Aristotle sees dualisers as an objective feature of the world that does not depend on the ambiguity of our concepts, and that the passages on dualisers can be better understood on an essentialist (as opposed to a relativist) interpretation of classification. For Aristotle, dualisers belong “to both and to neither” of two opposite kinds because they belong to both in a spurious sense, but they are not full members of either.
References
Balme, D. M. 1962. “ΓΕΝΟΣ and ΕΙΔΟΣ in Aristotle’s Biology.” Classical Quarterly 12: 81–98.10.1017/S0009838800011642Search in Google Scholar
Balme, D. M. 1987. “Aristotle’s Use of Division and Differentiae.” In Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, edited by A. Gotthelf and J.G. Lennox, 69–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511552564.008Search in Google Scholar
Balme, D. M., ed. 2002. Aristotle: Historia Animalium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Balme, D. M., and A. Gotthelf, eds. 1991. Aristotle: Historia Animalium, Books VII-X. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bonitz, H. 1870. Index Aristotelicus. Berlin: Reimer.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, D. 2000. Aristotle on Meaning and Essence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gotthelf, A. 2012a. “Data-Organization, Classification, and Kinds.” In Teleology, First Principles and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology, 292–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287956.003.0012Search in Google Scholar
Gotthelf, A. 2012b. “Ha I.6 490b7–491a6.” In Teleology, First Principles and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology, 293–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287956.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Granger, H. 1985. “The Scala Naturae and the Continuity of Kinds.” Phronesis 30: 181–200.10.1163/156852885X00048Search in Google Scholar
Jaeger, W., ed. 1913. Aristotelis De Animalium Motione Et De Animalium Incessu. Ps.-Aristotelis De Spiritu Libellus. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Kullmann, W., ed. 2007. Aristoteles: Über Die Teile Der Lebewesen. Berlin: Akademie.Search in Google Scholar
Lennox, J. G., ed. 2001. Aristotle: On the Parts of Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lennox, J. G. 2010. “Kinds, Forms of Kinds and the More and the Less in Aristotle’s Biology.” In Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology: Studies in the Origins of Life Science, 160–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leunissen, M., and A. Gotthelf. 2010. “‘What’s Teleology Got to Do with It?’ A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Generation of Animals V.” Phronesis 55: 325–356.10.1163/156852810X523914Search in Google Scholar
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. 1990. “Aristotle’s Zoology and His Metaphysics. The Status Questionis. A Critical Review of Some Recent Theories.” In Biologie, Logique Et Métaphysique Chez Aristote, edited by D. Devereux and P. Pellegrin, 7–35. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Search in Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1983. Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Louis, P., ed. 1956. Les Parties des Animaux. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Search in Google Scholar
Lulofs, H. J. D., ed. 1965. Aristotelis De Generatione Animalium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, J. B. 1855. Aristoteles Thierkunde: Ein Beitrag Zur Geschichte Der Zoologie, Psychologie Und Alten Philosophie. Berlin: Reimer.10.1515/9783111499987Search in Google Scholar
Parker, R. 1984. “Sex, Women, and Ambiguous Animals.” Phronesis 29: 174–187.10.1163/156852884X00148Search in Google Scholar
Peck, A. L., ed. 1937. Aristotle: Parts of Animals. London: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar
Peck, A. L., ed. 1965. Aristotle: Historia Animalium, Books I-III. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pellegrin, P. 1982. La Classification Des Animaux Chez Aristote: Statut De La Biologie Et Unité De L’Aristotélisme. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, W. D., ed. 1924. Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Witt, C. 2012. “Aristotle on Deformed Animal Kinds.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 43: 83–106.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199666164.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin
