It is a little disingenuous to assume that Aristotle would have simply "changed his mind" upon "enlightenment" by modern science and observation of modern technology. Modern-day Aristotelians have countered many such objections raised by modern science.
I suspect Aristotle was much brighter than modern day Aristotelians. He had an excuse for believing the quaint things he did--namely, that he didn't have access to a lot of the knowledge discovered after his death. Modern day believers have no such excuse. Either all being is animate (and then you're a panpsychist), or inanimate (and then you're a zombie), or there is indeed a distinction between living and nonliving things (as appears to be the correct, Aristotelian view). We know from simple observation that some things exhibit qualities of vital organization and others do not. Humans and nonhuman animals alike are observed to have sensory faculties. Plants and minerals are not. There is no spectrum of complexity between the animate and the inanimate. There's no halfway point between having powers of external sensation and not having said powers
I do not deny there is a distinction that can be made between animate things toward one side of the spectrum and inanimate things toward the other side of the spectrum. What I deny is that there is a dichotemy, that there is any one place where you can draw a line. I think you would need that to be the case if you wanted to believe they were really two different kinds of substances rather than just varying levels of complexity.
I see the relationship between atoms and a conscious animate being as the same as the relationship between a brick and a house. If you put enough bricks together you get a house, but there is no magic number of bricks that you stack up and then suddenly it becomes a house... and they are not different kinds of substances.
You claim "there is no spectrum of complexity between animate and inanimate", so it sounds like you must believe there is a gap in the spectrum somewhere between animate and inanimate. But every level of the spectrum has been studied scientifically in great detail, and no gaps have ever been found. Given any two examples, one of which seems "more animate" than the other, there is always some example of something in between. Where do you propose the gap is? Where do you think the line is?
You mention that humans and non-human animals have sensory faculties while plants and minerals do not. So it sounds like you believe the gap is somewhere between a non-human animal and a plant. So would you consider the following two organisms (sponges and corals) animate or inanimate?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: (2) Vindicating Aristotle
Date: 2010-12-02 02:07 am (UTC)It is a little disingenuous to assume that Aristotle would have simply "changed his mind" upon "enlightenment" by modern science and observation of modern technology. Modern-day Aristotelians have countered many such objections raised by modern science.
I suspect Aristotle was much brighter than modern day Aristotelians. He had an excuse for believing the quaint things he did--namely, that he didn't have access to a lot of the knowledge discovered after his death. Modern day believers have no such excuse.
Either all being is animate (and then you're a panpsychist), or inanimate (and then you're a zombie), or there is indeed a distinction between living and nonliving things (as appears to be the correct, Aristotelian view). We know from simple observation that some things exhibit qualities of vital organization and others do not. Humans and nonhuman animals alike are observed to have sensory faculties. Plants and minerals are not. There is no spectrum of complexity between the animate and the inanimate. There's no halfway point between having powers of external sensation and not having said powers
I do not deny there is a distinction that can be made between animate things toward one side of the spectrum and inanimate things toward the other side of the spectrum. What I deny is that there is a dichotemy, that there is any one place where you can draw a line. I think you would need that to be the case if you wanted to believe they were really two different kinds of substances rather than just varying levels of complexity.
I see the relationship between atoms and a conscious animate being as the same as the relationship between a brick and a house. If you put enough bricks together you get a house, but there is no magic number of bricks that you stack up and then suddenly it becomes a house... and they are not different kinds of substances.
You claim "there is no spectrum of complexity between animate and inanimate", so it sounds like you must believe there is a gap in the spectrum somewhere between animate and inanimate. But every level of the spectrum has been studied scientifically in great detail, and no gaps have ever been found. Given any two examples, one of which seems "more animate" than the other, there is always some example of something in between. Where do you propose the gap is? Where do you think the line is?
You mention that humans and non-human animals have sensory faculties while plants and minerals do not. So it sounds like you believe the gap is somewhere between a non-human animal and a plant. So would you consider the following two organisms (sponges and corals) animate or inanimate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral
I start here since it seems to be where you think the gap is. If you think it is somewhere else, then I'll give you another example.