Using Aristotle's Philosophy of Mathematics to Understand the Scope of Hypothetical and Simple Necessity in His Philosophy of Biology

Dissertation, The University of Utah (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Commentators on Aristotle's philosophy of biology construe teleological explanations in one of two ways. Call these two ways T1: the natural world contains both teleological and nonteleological properties, and T2: the natural world contains only teleological properties, there are no nonteleological properties. The problem of attributing either T1 or T2 to Aristotle arises because the relationship between what he calls "hypothetical necessity" and "simple necessity" is not clearly understood. Properties that are hypothetically necessitated are teleological . Properties that are simply necessitated are nonteleological . If we accept T1 it is unclear how hypothetical and simple necessity are related; the former becomes superfluous if we can explain everything via the latter. But, if we accept T2 then this threatens to collapse the distinction Aristotle clearly makes between hypothetical and simple necessity. Commentators argue for either T1 or T2. ;The intent of this dissertation is to argue for a version of T that preserves the distinction between hypothetical and simple necessity, yet offers an account of how these two sorts of necessity are related. My approach has two distinct aspects. First, I develop a "map" of Aristotle's metaphysical picture of the universe that classifies the ontology of the objects of biological study and distinguishes them from those of other sciences. Second, I show how Aristotle defines the key terms "hypothetical," "simple," and "necessity" in the context of his philosophy of mathematics and show that these definitions are to be applied in biological contexts. I support this argument by discussing a number of central texts in Aristotle's biology where he forges direct links between mathematical necessity and biological necessity by using former to illustrate his understanding of the latter. ;I conclude that the terms "hypothetical" and "simple" do not denote separate kinds of necessity, but two distinct modes by which objects are necessitated; this is how hypothetical and simple necessity are related. However, hypothetical and simple necessity are not synonymous since they apply to different kinds of objects. This is how hypothetical and simple necessity are distinct

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,505

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Necessitarianism and teleology in Aristotle's biology.Robert Friedman - 1986 - Biology and Philosophy 1 (3):355-365.
Aristotle on Hypothetical Necessity and Irreducibility.David Charles - 1988 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69 (1):1.
Four-Eighths Hephaistos: Artifacts and Living Things in Aristotle.Kathrin Koslicki - 1997 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 14 (1):77 - 98.
Plato's and Aristotle's Explanation of Human Posture.Pavel Gregorić - 2005 - Rhizai. A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 2:183-196.
Plato on Sunaitia.Douglas R. Campbell - 2023 - Apeiron 56 (4):739-768.
Confusing Necessities in De Interpretatione 9.Clifford M. Roberts - 2024 - Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 42 (1):71-109.
Blood, Matter, and Necessity.David Ebrey - 2015 - In Theory and Practice in Aristotle's Natural Science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 61-76.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references