The Aristotelian Tradition of Natural Kinds and Its Demise

273 Pages·2018·17.638 MB·English

by  Stewart Umphrey

THE ARISTOTELIAN
TRADITION OF NATURAL
KINDS & ITS DEMISE

THE ARISTOTELIAN TRADITION OF
NATURAL KINDS & ITS DEMISE
STEWART UMPHREY
The Catholic University of America Press
Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 2018
The Catholic University of America Press
All rights reserved
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
∞
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Umphrey, Stewart, 1942– author.
Title: The Aristotelian tradition of natural kinds and its demise / Stewart Umphrey.
Description: Washington, D.C. : The Catholic University of America Press, 2018. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018007869 | ISBN 9780813230412 (cloth : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Species—Philosophy—History.
Classification: LCC QH380 .U47 2018 | DDC 576.8/6—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018007869
In memory of
WIllIam edgar
phIlosopher & frIend

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ix
Prologue 1
1 Origin of the Idea of Natural Kinds 18
2 Eidos and Genesis I: Plato 44
3 Eidos and Genesis II: Aristotle 78
4 And the Word of God 118
5 Lex and Motus I: Galilean Science 145
6 Lex and Motus II: After Descartes 181
7 Darwin 218
Selected Bibliography 245
Index 257
vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Of those who helped me think about the subject matter
of this book, I wish to single out for special thanks the
following people: Bill Edgar, who prompted me to study
anew the Aristotelian tradition of natural kinds; David
McNeill, Alan Pichanick, and Thomas Cleveland, with
whom I discussed several Platonic dialogues relevant to
this theme; Jason Tipton, for conversations about Aris-
totle’s understanding of living things; Joe Macfarland, for
relevant comments while I was revising parts of chapter 4;
Chester Burke, with whom I have enjoyed many conversa-
tions about Leibniz, Galileo, Huygens, Newton, and Max-
well; and Nick Maistrellis, for helpful comments while I
was preparing to write chapter 7.
I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who read
the manuscript in its entirety and made a number of use-
ful recommendations. For any remaining errors and omis-
sions I am, of course, solely responsible.
ix