What is Aristotle famous for in biology briefly? The Birth of Biology

The great encyclopedist of antiquity, Aristotle, became one of the founders of biology as a science, for the first time summarizing the biological knowledge accumulated by humanity before him.

Aristotle was born in 384 BC. e. in the city of Stagira - hence the nickname Stagirite that stuck to it. His father Nicomachus was a court physician, and Aristotle spent his childhood at the court of King Amyntas of Macedonia, grandfather of Alexander the Great.

During his adolescence, Aristotle helped his father in his medical practice. He always treated his father with great respect and subsequently named his son in honor of his father - Nicomachus.

At the age of 15, Aristotle lost his parents. Two years later, the young man went to study in Athens, where he entered Plato’s school (Academy). Aristotle spent 20 years here, first as a student and then as a teacher.

Aristotle remained faithful to his teacher Plato, not parting with him until his death. In one of his poems, Aristotle wrote about Plato that he was the first to prove with his life and teaching the following idea: to be a good person and to be happy are two sides of the same desire.

After leaving the Academy in 347 BC. BC, Aristotle moved to the city of Assos, which had just been founded in Asia Minor. The founder and ruler of the city, Hermias, was familiar to Aristotle from the Academy. Hermia's niece and adopted daughter Pythias became Aristotle's wife and mother of his daughter. But their marriage did not last long, since Pythias died young. After the death of Aristotle himself, according to his will, the remains of his wife were buried next to him, which was also her dying wish.

In 343 BC. e. Aristotle receives an invitation from the Macedonian king Philip II to become the tutor of the 13-year-old heir to the throne, Alexander.

In addition to personal acquaintance, Aristotle’s fame as a philosopher also played a role in the fact that such an invitation was made. This is how fate brought together two great people, Aristotle and Alexander the Great. They said about them that one of them managed to conquer half the world by force of arms, the other opened a new world for the human spirit and science.

A special school was created for classes with Alexander. In addition to the heir to the throne, a group of young men from noble families were trained here. Aristotle believed that noble friendship between young people will help to properly educate their character. Alexander admired Aristotle. In his own words, he loved his teacher no less than his father, saying that he owes to Philip that he lives, and to Aristotle that he lives with dignity.

Aristotle taught the heir to the Macedonian throne ethics and politics, oratory, and literature for about three years. Plutarch wrote: “Alexander was also initiated by Aristotle into the secret, most profound branches of science, which were called esoteric by the teachers of that time (that is, accessible only to initiates) and which were not communicated to ordinary students.”

Alexander's favorite work was Homer's Iliad. Aristotle made a list (a handwritten copy) of this work especially for his pupil, which was constantly at Alexander’s head, next to his sword. Later, Alexander made the Iliad his “soldier’s Bible,” always carrying it with him on campaigns.

According to historians, King Philip, Alexander’s father, told his son: “Truly, it was not in vain that we surrounded Aristotle with honor, for the greatest reward deserves the person who conveyed to you such a teaching about royal duties and tasks - it does not matter whether he achieved this through interpretation Homer or in any other way."

Aristotle, teaching his royal student natural history (as biology was then called), aroused his interest in it. Subsequently, Alexander ordered a thousand people located in different places in Asia and Greece to follow all the scientific instructions of Aristotle: to catch animals and describe in detail their lifestyle and behavior.

Plutarch also attributed Alexander's interest in medicine to the influence of Aristotle. Subsequently, Alexander the Great often came to the aid of his sick friends, prescribing various methods of treatment and treatment regimen.

Classes with Alexander ended when the young man became interested in military affairs and began to take
participation in his father's campaigns. Aristotle returned to his hometown of Stagira. This city, destroyed by Philip in the war against Athens, was restored by him as a sign of gratitude to Aristotle for the education of Alexander. Philip returned there the citizens of this city who had fled or were in captivity.

In 335 BC. e. Aristotle again came to Athens and here, with the support of his friend, the governor of Alexander the Great in Greece, he opened his school - the Lyceum (in Latin spelling - “Lyceum”). The school got its name because it was located near the Temple of Apollo Lyceum.

On the school grounds there was a gymnasium (a place for gymnastic exercises), a shady grove and a garden with covered walkways. Aristotle conducted his conversations with his students during leisurely walks. From the word “walk” (in ancient Greek “peripatos”) the Lyceum received its second name - the school of the Peripatetics.

Aristotle taught at the Lyceum for 12 years. He had excellent command of speech and conducted scientific dialogues, wittily making fun of his opponents. True, he was never distinguished by excessive modesty in his judgments. They quote him as saying: “No one can say anything true about this unless he says the same thing as me.” He managed to educate a galaxy of philosophers, as well as scientists who devoted themselves to natural science, among whom Theophrastus should be noted (this name is often written as Theophrastus). The latter went down in the history of science as the “father of botany” (while Aristotle’s works on botany have not reached us). After Aristotle's death, Theophrastus led the Lyceum for 34 years.

In 323 BC. e. After the sudden death of Alexander the Great, an anti-Macedonian uprising broke out in Greece. Aristotle was charged with blasphemy, a standard charge at the time. The reason for this was a poem by Aristotle, written by him much earlier on the death of Hermias, his father-in-law, executed by the Persians. In this poem they saw Aristotle’s deification of Hermias.

To avoid the fate of the philosopher Socrates, Plato's teacher, who was sentenced to death on a similar charge, Aristotle had to flee from Athens without waiting for trial. A month later, at the age of 62, he died on the island of Euboea from a stomach disease that he had suffered all his life.

Aristotle left behind about 300 works. His ideas and writings were spread by numerous students and followers. Only a small part of the philosopher’s works has reached us.

Aristotle had encyclopedic knowledge in the true sense of the word. He studied philosophy and history, mathematics and physics, zoology and botany, medicine and ethics, the theory of art, literature and theater, and rhetoric.

Aristotle.

Aristotle's most significant works on biology are “History of Animals”, “On the Parts of Animals” and “The Origin of Animals”. About the first of them, the French biologist Georges Cuvier wrote: “This is one of the most amazing works left to us by antiquity, one of the greatest monuments created by human genius in the field of natural science.”

In the History of Animals, Aristotle was the first in the history of science to develop a taxonomy of animals. He divided them into two large groups: animals with blood and bloodless ones. This division roughly corresponds to the division between vertebrates and invertebrates. He, in turn, divided animals with blood into oviparous and viviparous.

Aristotle placed man in a place of honor - at the head of animals with blood. Aristotle owns the catchphrase that man is a “social animal” (in ancient Greek - “zoon politicon”), endowed with reason.

In his work “On the Parts of Animals,” Aristotle expressed the important idea that from inanimate bodies to plants, from plants to animals, right up to humans, there is a continuous series of increasingly complex forms. This book made an indelible impression on Charles Darwin. He wrote: “I have rarely read anything more interesting.

My gods, although in very different ways, were Linnaeus and Cuvier, but they are just schoolboys compared to old Aristotle. What an extraordinary man he was!”

In his work “The Origin of Animals,” Aristotle, in particular, traced the development of the chicken embryo day by day. He noticed that in the initial stages of development, the embryos of the most different animals are similar. Aristotle suggested that the embryo of viviparous animals at the beginning of its development is also an egg, although devoid of a hard shell. Thus, Aristotle can to some extent be considered the founder of embryology (the science of embryonic development), who anticipated many later biological ideas.

Aristotle is called the "father of zoology." He studied more than 500 species of animals, describing their appearance and structure, lifestyle and behavior. He proved that sharks and some snakes are viviparous, and also that drones develop from unfertilized eggs. He studied the third eyelid in birds, the rudimentary eyes of a mole, the chewing apparatus of sea urchins (which is still called “Aristotle’s lantern”), the hibernation of animals, the migration of birds, the migration of fish and mammals, and much more.

Aristotle was also interested in the problem of the origin of life. He believed that life arises by itself, and even such complex creatures as fish can arise from sea silt.

The discovery of some biological laws is also associated with the name of Aristotle. He developed the doctrine of analogous and homologous parts of the body. “In animals of different genera, most of the organs have different shapes. Some are similar in position and function, but have different origins. Others are of the same nature, but different in form,” the scientist asserted.

Aristotle, as if in rough form, formulated the principle of correlation of organs, later brilliantly developed by Georges Cuvier (see article “Georges Cuvier”). Aristotle wrote: “Nature cannot send the same material to different places at the same time... Having been generous in one direction, it saves in others. A change in one organ causes changes in another."

This is by no means a complete account of Aristotle's contribution to the development of biology. During his life he did much more for science than was done in a number of subsequent centuries.

I would like to end the article about Aristotle with his own statement: “In the system of the world, we are given a short period of stay - life. This gift is high and beautiful. Thinking is the most valiant occupation of man, the height of bliss and joy in life.”

1 of 9

Presentation on the topic: Aristotle. Merits in biology

Slide no. 1

Slide description:

Slide no. 2

Slide description:

Brief biography of Aristotle (384-322 BC), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. Born in Stagira. In 367 he went to Athens and, becoming a student of Plato, for 20 years, until Plato’s death, was a member of the Platonic Academy. In 343 he was invited by the king of Macedonia to raise his son. In 335 he returned to Athens and created his own school there (Lyceum, or Peripatetic school). He died in Chalkis on Euboea, where he fled from persecution on charges of a crime against religion.

Slide no. 3

Slide description:

Aristotle became one of the founders of science, for the first time summarizing the biological knowledge accumulated by humanity before him. He developed a taxonomy of animals, defining a place in it for man, whom he called a social animal endowed with reason. Many of Aristotle's works were devoted to the origin of life. He formulated the theory of continuous and gradual development of living and nonliving matter.

Slide no. 4

Slide description:

Works of the scientist The works of Aristotle that have reached us are divided according to their content into 7 groups: Logical treatises; Biological treatises: “History of Animals”, “On the Parts of Animals”, “On the Origin of Animals”, “On the Movement of Animals”; Treatise “On the Soul”; Essay on “first philosophy”; considering existence as such and later received the name “Metaphysics”; Ethical works - the so-called “Nicomachean Ethics” (dedicated to Nicomacheus, the son of Aristotle) ​​and “Eudemus Ethics” (dedicated to Eudemus, a student of Aristotle); Socio-political and historical works: “Politics”, “The Athenian Polity”.

Slide no. 5

Slide description:

Aristotle's Biology In the field of biology, one of Aristotle's merits is his doctrine of biological expediency, based on observations of the expedient structure of living organisms. Aristotle saw examples of purposefulness in nature in such facts as the development of organic structures from seeds, various manifestations of the purposefully acting instinct of animals, the mutual adaptability of their organs, etc. In Aristotle’s biological works, which served for a long time as the main source of information on zoology, a classification and description of numerous animal species. The matter of life is the body, the form is the soul, which Aristotle called “entelechy”. According to the three kinds of living beings (plants, animals, humans), Aristotle distinguished three souls, or three parts of the soul: plant, animal (sensing) and rational.

Slide no. 6

Slide description:

Animal taxonomy The animal system was first developed in the 4th century. BC e. Aristotle, who described more than 450 forms, dividing them into 2 large groups: - animals supplied with blood (vertebrates, according to modern ideas); -bloodless (invertebrates, in the modern sense). Animals with blood, in turn, were divided by him into groups roughly corresponding to modern classes. With regard to invertebrates, Aristotle's system was less perfect. Thus, among modern types, he more or less correctly identified only arthropods.

Slide no. 7

Slide description:

The theory of spontaneous generation of living beings In his writings, Aristotle cites countless “facts” of spontaneous generation of living beings - plants, insects, worms, frogs, mice, some sea animals - indicating the conditions necessary for this - the presence of decomposing organic remains, manure, spoiled meat, various garbage, dirt. Aristotle even provided a certain theoretical basis for these “facts” - he argued that the sudden birth of living beings was caused by nothing more than the influence of some spiritual principle on previously lifeless matter.

Slide no. 8

Slide description:

But at the same time, Aristotle also expresses quite sound thoughts, close in essence to evolutionary theory: “In addition, it is possible that some bodies from time to time transform into others, and those, in turn, decaying, undergo new transformations, and thus In this way, development and decay balance each other.”

Slide no. 9

Slide description:

Aristotle's Ladder It is also certainly worth noting that Aristotle was the first scientist to express the idea of ​​a “ladder of creatures” (from the less developed and more primitive to the most developed, and in a broader sense, from inanimate to living nature). This is what Aristotle's “ladder” looked like: 1) Man; 2) Animals; 3) Zoophytes; 4) Plants; 5) Inorganic matter.

Aristotle is the founder of biology as a science. As an astronomer, Aristotle was a systematizer and popularizer, and not the best one at that. As a biologist he is a pioneer.

Since we are writing about Aristotle as a philosopher, it is important for us here to emphasize first of all the philosophical significance of Aristotle’s biological views.

After all, it was a living organism, and not just a person and his activities, as mentioned above, that was a model for Aristotle when constructing a general picture of the world. The doctrine of the final cause with its side companion - spontaneity - was modeled by the philosopher on a living organism in the same way as the same doctrine about the same cause with its side companion - chance - was modeled on the choosing, decision-making person. The world as a whole, with its self-thinking thinking - God, is likened by Aristotle to a thinking living organism. Apology of biology. Before Aristotle, biology was shunned. The stars were more respected objects, nobler material for observation and reflection, than living organisms filled with mucus and feces. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the first book, “On the Parts of Animals,” Aristotle proves that plants and animals represent an object no less valuable for scientific research than celestial bodies, although the former are transitory, and the latter, as it seemed to the philosopher, are eternal. Speaking about both astronomy and biology, Aristotle proclaims that “both studies have their own charm” (On the parts of animals 1, 5) Moreover, the plant and animal world surrounding humans is given to us in direct sensation in a much greater degrees than celestial bodies, so studying it is a rewarding task, because “we have a greater opportunity to know about animals and plants, because we grow up with them” (ibid.) and are in a natural relationship with them.

Although Aristotle himself felt disgust and disgust for the entrails of animals, for otherwise he would not have said that “one cannot look without great disgust at what a person is made of, such as blood, veins and similar parts” (I , 5), he nevertheless contrasted this feeling, characteristic of many people and frightening them from studying biology, with the pleasure of knowledge, regardless of whether the object of knowledge is pleasant or not to the person’s immediate feeling, if, of course, this person is a true scientist and, especially, a philosopher. After all, “by observing even those of them that are unpleasant to the senses,” says Aristotle, “the nature that created them gives ... inexpressible pleasures to people capable of knowing reasons and philosophers by nature” (I, 5). In the knowledge of causes, as we have seen, Aristotle believed the essence of scientific knowledge and the highest manifestation of the human mind.

At the same time, Aristotle notes that he cannot understand why people prefer the contemplation of artificial images of works of nature than the observation of living originals, which can reveal the causal background of what is observed (which is impossible in the case of dead images).

This consideration also applies to Aristotle’s aesthetic position. Let us note here that Aristotle gives preference to the observation of life over the aesthetic pleasure of contemplating its dead reflection in art. Aristotle calls the widespread “perversion” “strange and contrary to reason.”

Consequently, we have before us an apology for the real observation of living nature. It contradicts the above-mentioned speculative method of Aristotle’s physics and, even more so, his entire metaphysics. This makes one wonder whether the German researcher Jaeger was right, who, trying to solve the Aristotelian question, proceeded from the assumption that the development of Aristotle’s views followed the main line of his elimination of Platonism, and therefore Aristotle’s biological works with their empirical method complete the philosopher’s work. This consideration is also confirmed by the fact that after Aristotle, concrete and even empirical research prevailed in his school - primarily the botany of Theophrastus and others. But the objection is that Aristotle described and mentioned mainly those animals that lived in the Eastern Mediterranean, where the philosopher was in the second period, and therefore Aristotle himself begins with biological works, which had a great influence on his doctrine of the essence of being (formulated on the basis of the model of a living species), and even more so on the teleological nature of his worldview, also, however, significantly.

The empiricism of Aristotle the biologist reaches its apotheosis in his advice not to neglect anything when studying nature: “One should not childishly neglect the study of insignificant animals, for in every work of nature there is something worthy of surprise” (I, 5). Aristotle recalls the words of Heraclitus, addressed by him to the strangers who had arrived to meet him, who hesitated on the threshold of his hut, seeing him warming himself by the weak fireplace and were embarrassed by such a pitiful situation with such a great philosopher. Noticing their confusion, Heraclitus calmly told them to enter boldly, “for the gods dwell here too.” Aristotle applies these legendary words of the great thinker to all natural phenomena, albeit, at first glance, the most insignificant due to their smallness. The worm is no less divine than Sirius.

Here Aristotle is deeply right. The point is not the divinity of the worm, but the fact that the smallest organisms are the most powerful, and the damage that some insignificant Koch stick still inflicts on people is incomparable in magnitude with the damage caused to people by the “kings of nature.” However, humanity, until the invention of the elementary microscope by Leeuwenhoek, knew nothing about the simplest organisms!

So, Aristotle convinces his listeners to abandon their prejudice before the study of living nature, as a low and unworthy task (and this is the same author who, in “Politics,” proves that virtuosity in art is the work of slaves, while the noble one just needs to play well, so how any virtuosity enslaves a person). Aristotle said in his lectures on biology: “We must approach the study of animals without any disgust, since they all contain something natural and beautiful” (I, 5).

Teleology. However, we should not close our eyes to the fact that our philosopher sees beauty in living nature not in the matter of which living beings are composed (it is this that causes disgust), but in the contemplation of expediency. Aristotle prefers nature to art because “in works of nature, “for the sake of” the beautiful is manifested to an even greater extent than in works of art” (I, 1), constituting a “reasonable basis” in nature (I, 1). Aristotle thus went along the line of an imaginary explanation of the phenomena of living nature, along the line of discovering imaginary causes. After all, the search for a rational basis, a goal, gives the illusion of knowledge. Not more. Of course, in a living organism, where everything is interconnected and where parts exist for the sake of the whole, where many things are subordinated to the whole, everything leads to the question: “For what?” This question in itself is appropriate. However, frozen in such a position, it is easy to slip into the appearance of an explanation. Subsequently, vulgarized Aristotelianism greatly hindered the development of biological science, more than once leading it astray in search of imaginary goals.

Definition of life. Although Aristotle extends his principle of expediency to the entire universe, he is not a hylozoist. Not all bodies are endowed with life. In his work “On the Soul,” Aristotle writes that “of natural bodies, some are endowed with life, others are not” (II, 1). Aristotle has the first definition of life: “We call life all the nourishment, growth and decay of the body that has its basis in itself” (ibid.).

Origin of life. This question must be divided into two aspects: philosophical (metaphysical) and biological (scientific). All types of living things, being forms, are eternal, and therefore, in the metaphysical sense, life did not begin, since nothing happens at all in the world at the level of “essences of being.” From a biological point of view, the origin of life is quite possible, if by this we mean the implementation (entelechy) of a species in nature. For this there must be favorable conditions. Once realized, the species continues to reproduce itself, a new individual arising from the seed of the older one. However, Aristotle allowed the spontaneous generation of lower species of living things from non-living things: worms, mollusks and even fish, which in terms of metaphysics means that the form of these creatures can become entelechy directly in marine or decaying matter. This false theory of spontaneous generation - the product of a lack of observation in relation to the small things accessible to the naked eye, the study of which Aristotle himself advocated - caused great harm to biology, taking root over time to such an extent that it was only with great difficulty that it was abandoned only in the last century, when experimentally it was possible to it has been proven that specific life is always transmitted through an egg (as for the origin of life in general, this question is still not resolved).

Classification of animals. In the field of biology, Aristotle is the father, first of all, of zoology (like Theophrastus of botany). In Aristotle's zoological works, more than five hundred species of animals were mentioned and described - a huge figure for that time. Aristotle's focus is on the species, not the individual or the genus. These are the “essences of being,” forms, the first essences (according to “Metaphysics”). A species is that minimally general thing that almost merges with the individual, spreading out in it thanks to random, unimportant features, but which still allows definition as a verbal expression of the autonomous “essence of being,” essence in its understanding by Aristotle.

A species is more real than its constituent individuals and than the genus into which the species is included along with other species, for the genus does not really exist; it is a hypostatization of essential characteristics inherent in all species of the genus. In biology, Aristotle is right. The individuals there are really not much different from the species; they are all approximately the same. It is possible that in the doctrine of form in his first philosophy, Aristotle was inspired at this point precisely by his biological observations and knowledge. Unfortunately, he equated people with animals, reducing them to a species, denying a certain Socrates any significant differences from a certain Callias.

However, Aristotle did not stop at species. He sought to include them in more general groups. Aristotle divided all animals into blood-bearing and bloodless, which approximately corresponds to the division of living beings by modern scientific biology into vertebrates and invertebrates. We omit here further details of Aristotle's classification of animals.

"Staircase of Creatures" Summarizing the fact of the presence of transitional forms between plants and animals, flora and fauna, Aristotle writes in his essay “On the Parts of Animals”: ​​“Nature passes continuously from inanimate bodies to animals, through those that live, but are not animals” (IV, 5 ). The History of Animals says that nature gradually passes from plants to animals, because regarding some creatures living in the sea, one can doubt whether they are plants or animals; nature also gradually moves from inanimate objects to animals, because plants, compared to animals, are almost inanimate, and compared to inanimate things, they are animate. Those who have more life and Movement are more animated, while some differ in this respect from others by a small amount.

B. XVIII century the Swiss naturalist Bonnet would call this ascent of species a “ladder of creatures.” It was understood evolutionistically: higher stages appeared later in time than lower ones, life ascended over time along these stages. There was nothing like this in Aristotle’s biological views. For him, all levels coexist from time to time, all forms of living nature are eternal and unchanging. Aristotle is far from evolutionism. And yet Charles Darwin claimed that Linnaeus and Cuvier were his gods, but these “gods” are only children compared to “old Aristotle.” Darwin highly valued Aristotle as the founder of biology and as a non-evolutionist who prepared evolutionism with his idea of ​​gradation, the hierarchization of life forms.

Biological discoveries. The name of Aristotle is also associated with specific biological scientific discoveries. The chewing apparatus of sea urchins is called “Aristotle’s lantern.” The philosopher distinguished between an organ and a function, linking the first with a material cause, and the second with a formal and purposeful one. Aristotle discovered the principle of correlation in the formula: “What nature takes away in one place, she gives to other parts.” For example, having taken away the teeth in the upper jaw, nature rewards it with horns. Aristotle had other discoveries.

Aristotle is the founder of biology as a science. As an astronomer, Aristotle was a systematizer and popularizer, and not the best one at that. As a biologist he is a pioneer.

Before Aristotle, biology was shunned. The stars were more respected objects, nobler material for observation and reflection, than living organisms filled with mucus and feces. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the first book, “On the Parts of Animals,” Aristotle proves that plants and animals represent an object no less valuable for scientific research than celestial bodies, although the former are transitory, and the latter, as it seemed to the philosopher, are eternal. Speaking of both astronomy and biology, Aristotle proclaims that “both studies have their charm” (On the Parts of Animals I, 5).

Although Aristotle himself felt disgust and disgust for the entrails of animals, he, nevertheless, contrasted this feeling, characteristic of many people and frightening them from studying biology, with the pleasure of knowledge, regardless of whether the object of knowledge is pleasant or not to the direct sense of man, unless, of course, this man is a true scientist and, moreover, a philosopher. After all, “by observing even those of them that are unpleasant to the senses,” says Aristotle, “the nature that created them gives ... inexpressible pleasures to people capable of knowing reasons and philosophers by nature” (II, 5). In the knowledge of causes, as we have seen, Aristotle believed the essence of scientific knowledge and the highest manifestation of the human mind.

At the same time, Aristotle notes that he cannot understand why people prefer the contemplation of artificial images of works of nature than the observation of living originals, which can reveal the causal background of what is being observed. The philosopher gives preference to observing life over the aesthetic pleasure of contemplating its dead reflection in art.

Investigator, before us is an apology for real observation of living nature. It contradicts the speculative method of Aristotle’s physics and, moreover, his entire metaphysics.

The empiricism of Aristotle the biologist reaches its apotheosis in his advice not to neglect anything when studying nature: “One should not childishly neglect the study of insignificant animals, for in every work of nature there is something worthy of surprise” (I, 5).

Aristotle said in his lectures on biology: “We must approach the study of animals without any disgust, since they all contain something natural and beautiful” (I, 5).

However, we should not close our eyes to the fact that our philosopher sees beauty in living nature not in the matter of which living beings are composed (it is this that causes disgust), but in the contemplation of expediency.

Although Aristotle extends his principle of expediency to the entire universe, he is not a hylozoist. Not all bodies are endowed with life. In his work “On the Soul,” Aristotle writes that “of natural bodies, some are endowed with life, others are not” (II, 1). Aristotle has the first definition of life: “We call life all the nourishment, growth and decay of the body that has its basis in itself” (ibid.).

The question of the origin of life should be divided into two aspects: philosophical (metaphysical) and biological (scientific). All types of animals, being forms, are eternal, and therefore in the metaphysical sense life did not begin, since nothing happened at all in the world at the level of “essences of being.” From a biological point of view, the origin of life is quite possible, if by this we mean the implementation (entelechy) of a species in nature. For this there must be favorable conditions. Once realized, the species continues to reproduce itself, a new individual arising from the seed of the older one. However, Aristotle allowed the spontaneous generation of lower species of living things from non-living things: worms, mollusks and even fish, which in terms of metaphysics means that the form of these creatures can become entelechy directly in marine or decaying matter. This false theory of spontaneous generation - a product of the lack of observation in relation to that small thing accessible to the naked eye, the study of which Aristotle himself advocated - caused great harm to biology, taking root over time to such an extent that it was only with great difficulty that they said goodbye to it only in the 19th century, when experienced by which it was proved that concrete life always comes from an egg.

Aristotle is the father of zoology. In Aristotle's zoological works, a description of more than five hundred species of animals is mentioned - a huge figure for that time. The philosopher's focus is on the species, not the individual or the genus. These are the “essences of being,” forms, the first essences (according to “Metaphysics”). A species is that very minimal general thing that almost merges with the individual, spreading out in it thanks to random, unimportant characteristics.

However, Aristotle did not stop at species. He sought to include them in more general groups. Aristotle divided all animals into blood-bearing and bloodless, which approximately corresponds to the division of living beings by modern scientific biology into vertebrates and invertebrates.

Summarizing the fact of the presence of transitional forms between plants and animals, flora and fauna, Aristotle writes in his essay “On the Parts of Animals”: ​​“Nature passes continuously from inanimate bodies to animals, through those that live, but are not animals” (IV, 5 ). The History of Animals says that nature gradually passes from plants to animals, because regarding some creatures living in the sea, one can doubt whether they are plants or animals; nature also gradually moves from inanimate objects to animals, because plants, compared to animals, are almost inanimate, but compared to inanimate things, they are animate. Those who have more life and movement are more animated, while some differ in this respect from others by a small amount.

The name of Aristotle is also associated with specific biological scientific discoveries. The chewing apparatus of sea urchins is called “Aristotle’s lantern.” The philosopher distinguished between an organ and a function, linking the first with a material cause, and the second with a formal and purposeful one. Aristotle discovered the principle of correlation in the formula: “What nature takes away in one place, it gives to others in parts.”

Biology

Of all the sciences, biology has perhaps felt the greatest influence of Aristotle. He can well be considered the founder of many branches of biology. In addition, Aristotle and his students were responsible for a number of important biological discoveries. If Aristotle did not become the first scientist to study biological objects, then we can say with confidence that it was he who was the first to organize and carry out the systematic study of living nature. Aristotle is often called the “father” of biology as a science. That is why we pay the greatest attention to this area of ​​scientific activity of our hero.

Aristotle described about 500 species of animals and created the first zoological taxonomy in the history of science. Therefore, he is considered the founder of zoology. While studying animals, Aristotle divided them into two groups: animals with blood (with red blood) and animals without blood (without red blood). The first group roughly corresponds to the modern concept of “vertebrates”, and the second - “invertebrates”. As for animals with blood, Aristotle divided them into oviparous and viviparous (mammals), and within the oviparous he identified groups roughly corresponding to modern classes. It is also important that Aristotle classified humans as animals, placing him at the head of animals with blood. He also owns the definition according to which man is a “social animal.”

The scientist paid special attention to comparing humans with animals, in particular with the notorious monkeys. Considering the above, Aristotle can safely be called the founder of another biological science - systematics.

It is interesting that the scientist was not baffled by such “abnormal” organisms as whales and dolphins. While studying the respiratory organs of dolphins, Aristotle came to the conclusion that they were not fish. He, however, did not classify dolphins as mammals, but identified them as a separate group of animals. Another interesting example: bats, since they have teeth, were unmistakably classified by Aristotle as mammals.

As for his classification of “bloodless” animals, it is much more different from the modern one. Aristotle divided all “bloodless” into 4 groups: soft-bodied, soft-shelled, insects and skull-skinned. He included cephalopods in the first group, crustaceans in the second; spiders and worms were also included in the insects; and, finally, the turtle-derms included gastropods and bivalves and sea urchins. Somewhat apart, between skullcaps and plants, Aristotle placed sponges, tunicates, holothurians, and coelenterates. What is important here is that the scientist did not classify immobile animals as plants.

Aristotle presented his system of living nature in the form of a ladder, at the base of which there was inanimate matter, then followed by plants, sedentary and motionless animals, bloodless and, finally, animals with blood. There was a man on the top step.

The taxonomy developed by Aristotle was relevant and actively used for two millennia!

While studying animals, the scientist compiled descriptions of about 60 insects and, one might say, founded entomology. He did not limit himself to describing the external signs of animals, but tried to study in detail their structure and features of life. So he discovered that drones hatch from unfertilized eggs of bees, described cases of symbiosis, discovered the rudiments of eyes in moles, and discovered the so-called Aristotelian lantern - a special jaw apparatus of sea urchins.

The scientist also paid a lot of attention to embryology, of which he is also considered one of the founders. In his book On the Origin of Animals, Aristotle describes the interesting research he conducted. By opening chicken eggs at different stages of incubation, he studied the development process of the bird embryo. Aristotle also studied the embryonic development of cold-blooded animals, mammals and, possibly, humans. He suggested that the embryos of viviparous animals at the beginning of their development also represent an egg, but without a hard shell. As we can see, Aristotle based the taxonomy of “animals with blood” on differences in reproduction. Modern taxonomy is largely based on this principle. Moreover, the scientist came close to formulating the reproductive criterion of biological species. He wrote:

“Mating, in accordance with nature, occurs between homogeneous animals; however, it also occurs in animals that are similar in nature, but not identical in appearance, if they are similar in size and the gestation time is the same.”

According to the modern formulation of this criterion, one species includes organisms that can produce fertile offspring.

Aristotle also introduced the comparative method into embryology. While studying the development of various organisms, he discovered similarities between the embryos of different animals. He established that sex is determined in the early stages of embryonic development. Explained the purpose of the placenta and umbilical cord. He discovered similarities between the processes of embryonic development and regeneration (restoration of lost organs). I traced the moment of formation and the beginning of the functioning of the circulatory system in birds - I discovered the heartbeat of a chicken embryo. Aristotle established that some species of sharks reproduce using true viviparity: “they lay eggs in their own body, where they are attached to a special placenta.” This discovery caused laughter among scientists for a long time and was confirmed only in the 19th century. The scientist also discovered viviparity in some snakes.

In his book On the Parts of Animals, Aristotle develops the idea that from inanimate bodies to plants, from plants to animals and humans, there is a continuous series of increasingly complex forms. You don't need to be an expert in biology to understand that this idea is only one step away from evolutionary views.

The doctrine of homologous and analogous organs also goes back to Aristotle. He wrote: “In animals of various genera, most of the organs have different shapes. Some are similar in position and function, but have different origins. Others are of the same nature, but different in form."

Here is another important idea: “Nature cannot send the same material to different places at the same time. Having been generous in one direction, she saves in others. A change in one organ causes changes in another."

In this quote, researchers find similarities with the law of organ correlation, the discovery of which belongs to the founder of paleontology, Georges Cuvier (1769–1832). Based on this principle, Cuvier, using several fragments of the skeleton, reconstructed a complete image of extinct animals.

In general, we can judge the scope of Aristotle’s anatomical research only indirectly. It is known that the “History of Animals” was accompanied by a book “Anatomy”, which has not reached us. But based on references from Aristotle himself and later authors, it can be assumed that “Anatomy” consisted of 7 books and contained a large number of drawings depicting animals and their individual organs.

The scientist was also interested in animal behavior (ethology). He studied the migration of birds, the migration of fish and mammals, and the hibernation of various animals. He described the care of offspring in catfish, the males of which guard the eggs. The last message was considered unreliable until the 19th century, when it was completely confirmed.

Aristotle also studied anatomy. For example, he discovered the cochlea, a cavity in the temporal bone that contains the inner ear. There is also reason to believe that the scientist paid attention to botany, but his works have not survived to this day. But Theophrastus supplemented the work of his teacher in this area.

Of course, with so many diverse studies, it was impossible to avoid erroneous data and theories. Thus, Aristotle wrote that the number of teeth in men and women is different, that air moves through the arteries, that the brain is always cold and its task is to cool the blood. He believed that spontaneous generation of life was possible. For example, the scientist believed that fish could spontaneously arise from sea mud. The hypothesis about the possibility of spontaneous origin of life was completely refuted only by Louis Pasteur in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

We can safely say that even if Aristotle had limited his interests only to biology, his contribution to the development of science would still be difficult to overestimate. At the same time, we must take into account that not all of Aristotle’s works have reached our time, and he may simply not have had time to describe some finds. Biologists to this day admire the scale of research carried out by the scientist. Such famous scientists as Cuvier, Buffon, Darwin sang praises to their ancient colleague. The latter wrote: “I have rarely read anything that interested me more. Linnaeus and Cuvier were my two deities, although in very different respects, and yet they are simple schoolchildren compared to old Aristotle.

It is especially important that this review belongs specifically to Charles Darwin, a natural scientist who is also distinguished by his extraordinary breadth of scientific interests.

Comparing Aristotle's biological research with his work in other fields, we can safely say that it was in biology that the scientist best implemented the empirical approach to science.