Ebook Free From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword
Book lovers, when you require an extra book to check out, discover guide From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword here. Never fret not to discover just what you need. Is the From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword your required book currently? That's true; you are really a great viewers. This is a perfect book From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword that originates from fantastic writer to show you. The book From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword provides the very best experience as well as lesson to take, not only take, yet likewise learn.
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword
Ebook Free From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword
Exactly how a suggestion can be got? By staring at the stars? By visiting the sea and taking a look at the sea interweaves? Or by reviewing a publication From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword Everybody will certainly have specific particular to get the inspiration. For you who are dying of publications and also constantly get the inspirations from books, it is actually excellent to be here. We will reveal you hundreds compilations of the book From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword to review. If you similar to this From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword, you can additionally take it as all yours.
But, exactly what's your concern not also loved reading From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword It is an excellent task that will certainly constantly offer fantastic advantages. Why you end up being so strange of it? Many things can be sensible why individuals don't like to review From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword It can be the monotonous activities, guide From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword compilations to check out, also lazy to bring nooks anywhere. Today, for this From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword, you will start to like reading. Why? Do you recognize why? Read this page by finished.
Beginning with visiting this site, you have actually tried to start loving checking out a publication From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword This is specialized website that sell hundreds collections of publications From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword from lots sources. So, you will not be tired anymore to select guide. Besides, if you additionally have no time to browse the book From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword, simply rest when you remain in workplace and open the browser. You could discover this From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword lodge this internet site by linking to the internet.
Get the connect to download this From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword as well as begin downloading. You can desire the download soft file of the book From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword by undergoing various other activities. And that's all done. Currently, your resort to read a book is not consistently taking and also bring guide From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword everywhere you go. You can conserve the soft data in your gadget that will certainly never be far away as well as read it as you like. It resembles reviewing story tale from your device then. Currently, begin to like reading From Aristotle To Darwin & Back Again: A Journey In Final Causality, Species And Evolution, By Etienne Gilson, Foreword and get your new life!
Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial, even though most scientists, philosophers, and even theologians accept it, in some form, as a well-attested explanation for the variety of organisms. The controversy erupts when the theory is used to try to explain everything, including every aspect of human life, and to deny the role of a Creator or a purpose to life. It is then that philosophers and theologians cry, "Foul!"
The overreaching of many scientists into fields beyond their competence is perhaps explained in part by the loss of an important idea in modern thinking-final causality or purpose. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek natural explanations and other kinds of causes. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final causality, to better understand the world and man.
The great philosopher and historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson sets out in this book to show that final causality or purposiveness is an inevitable idea for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which is linked to their natures. In other words, final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible.
- Sales Rank: #947675 in Books
- Brand: Ignatius Press
- Published on: 2009-09-30
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.10" h x .80" w x 6.40" l, .85 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 254 pages
Review
Gilson shows us that those who glibly suppose that modern biology has refuted Aristotle s doctrine of final causality do not properly understand either. The reprinting of this classic will, we can hope, contribute to the long-overdue revival of the philosophy of nature as an active field of study. -- Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Language Notes
Text: English, French (translation)
Most helpful customer reviews
57 of 58 people found the following review helpful.
Harmonizing Teleology and Evolution?
By G. Kyle Essary
This book is both brilliant and difficult.
The most glaring issue seems to stem from the translation. The work does not flow well, and the wordings are often obtuse, when more common philosophical terms could have been used for an easier read.
Translation aside, there are three things that I dislike about the book:
1. Originally written at the onset of our current post-secular age, Gilson was still required to write according to a mythical neutrality and with even a notion of scorn towards his fellow Christian scholars. Forty years later, the secularists remain among the loudest in the public square, but few academics continue to persist in the old myth of a secular neutrality, nor that we should hide our most cherished values in order to play according to unproven rules of this equally biased perspective. Thus, many words are wasted in arguing that teleology does not necessarily imply theism so as to appease the arbitrarily enforced secular worldview of the academy in his day.
2. As Christoph Schornborn mentions in the foreword, Gilson has an awkward relationship with formal causes. Unfortunately, due to my previous point, it is difficult to tell whether this is due to a philosophical reason or simply as a means to appease the secular worldview and appear more "neutral."
3. Gilson furthers the myth that Darwin lost his faith as a direct result of his scientific findings. Historians of Darwin continue to argue against this myth, although some have championed the propogation of this myth in order to further their own metaphysical perspectives. Nick Spencer's Darwin and God has shown the complexity of Darwins move from a deistic Christian position to an adamant agnosticism.
Despite these three negatives, I still give the book a worthy five stars.
It should be noted from the onset that this book is not arguing against evolution, or the "limits" of evolutionary science or anything similar. The author intends to show instead that current evolutionary thinking lends itself naturally to Aristotelean philosophy.
The book begins with a basic introduction to Aristotle's thinking in regards to mechanism and finalism. It then proceeds into an analysis of the key figures leading up to Darwin's theory. He discusses Lamarck, Wallace, Gray and especially Spencer as well as others. He also discusses how F. Darwin and Huxley continued a variation of Darwin's argument after his death. His concern was not the science, but the underlying metaphysical assumptions of each of these contributors to the discussion. Gilson's concern is to show that they had radically different metaphysical assumptions that led to conflicts in telling the story of evolution. Instead of resolving the difficulties, evolutionary thinking simply tried to exclude the metaphysical from the discussion and continue to progress based on the usefulness of its ideas in hopes that the distinct metaphysical disjunction could be hidden under the rug. Gilson quips, "The root of the difficulties is the fundamental indetermination of the notion of evolution. The notion signified something supposedly enveloped, but Spencer popularized the word in another sense which no one could exactly define."
For many of these scientists of a previous age, the observation of clear teleology means they are now in the realm of physics and teleology may lead to theology and scientists are not equipped to adequately discuss either of these fields. Somehow this admitted humility in regards to other spheres of knowledge led to an exclusion of other forms of knowledge, and as the scientific world rapidly progressed through the functionality and usefulness of their products, they began to present themselves as the only sphere of actual knowledge. Unfortunately, this move happened only as the result of a willful exclusion (in partiality as we will see) of the teleological and not as a result of scientific endeavor.
Gilson, after discussing this progression and showing along the way the constant reliance on teleological thinking says, "The long detour in which we have been involved with evolutionism will not have been useless. It allows us to see in the first place that the problem of final causality is just as unavoidable in the perspective of the evolution of species as in that of their creation" (i.e. Creationism). Strangely enough, Darwin and many of his contemporaries were thrilled by the fact that he had reunited teleology with their mechanistic view of the world. For instance, when Asa Gray thanked Darwin for restoring the role of the teleological to scientific thinking, Darwin responded, "What you say about teleology pleases me especially." It is no surprise that even after the neo-Darwinian synthesis, today many scientists constantly rely on teleological language and processes in order to make their determinations. Any time a scientist mentions the evolutionary "struggle" for survival they are inevitably resorting to an idea that species intentionally move toward and end. Any time they discuss the evolutionary "purpose" of some feature of a species they are likewise invoking teleology.
It would be fair to note at this point that Gilson would have no time for Intelligent Design (ID). Unsurprisingly, he reserves harsh criticism for some of the ideas underlying the grandfather of ID, William Paley. Whether correct or incorrect, he would see ID theorists as embracing the mechanistic worldview that he resists.
The final two chapters of Gilson's work are on the limits of mechanism and the constants of biophilosophy. This is where his argument takes off and shows that despite the desire of Bacon to separate certain philosophical notions in order to promote utility, these notions cannot be excluded. In a discussion of quantum realities and more contemporary biology, he comes back to Aristotle. As he says, "The facts that Aristotle's biology wished to explain are still there...up to the present no one has explained them any better. Mechanist interpretations of these facts, which Aristotle formerly said had failed, have not ever been satisfactory; they have only displayed more and more the inevitability of the notions of organization and teleology...in order to explain the existence of mechanistic structures of which science is the study." He makes the brilliant distinction early on in these chapters between how a mechanistic philosophy must exclude final causes a priori, often against common sense and empirical reasons, yet how a finalist philosophy can completely embrace the very mechanism at the heart of the other philosophy while giving a more complete explanation for things that mechanistic philosophy cannot per definition. He even suggests that whereas science may have no need for final causes to progress in its utilitarian endeavor for knowledge, they still exist in reality. There is a distinct difference between a methodological abstraction (or exclusion) and a real elimination and the constant reliance of science upon teleological language and methods only proves this point.
This review is already long, but gives the underlying ideas in this work. Whereas my explanation thus far is surely inadequate, if one takes the time to work through this book giving ample thought to what is being said, one will be rewarded with seeing the inevitability of complete explanations resorting to teleology. As Gilson concludes, if teleology so annoyingly continues to refuse to go away from the sciences, simply excluding it a prior only leaves it as an unexplained fact of nature. Let us instead seek to pursue knowledge from every angle, even if it means that we once again take up Aristotle and consider that after all these years, it may have been we who went astray.
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful.
Not for everyone, but useful for those with a deep interest in the project of science
By Peter S. Bradley
This book is a lot like physical exercise; difficult, occasionally enjoyable, often a slog, but worthwhile after the fact.
Gilson's book is not facially anti-Darwinian. Gilson's real concern is in defending the idea of final cause or teleology in biology from those who would say that such an idea has been disproven by science. Final cause, or teleology, is the idea that things are directed towards some end, either by something external to themselves or by their own internal existence. Gilson's argument is that Darwinism either doesn't disprove teleology because Darwin's method of science isn't interested in final causes or that Darwinism actually incorporated a kind of teleology when it adopted Herbert Spencer's language of "evolution."
Gilson is primarily writing as a historian of science and philosopher. Consequently, is method of analysis is historical. He reviews the history of ideas, rather than criticizing evolution or Darwin on a scientific basis. On the whole, Gilson appears to be quite sympathetic to Darwin as a person and a scientist.
Gilson's first chapter is on the "Aristotelian prologue." Gilson examines Aristotle's idea of final cause, and how Aristotle responded to those who would deny final cause. Gilson points out that Aristotle's interest in biology led him to conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence of final cause in the biological world. This evidence grew out of Aristotle's observations that natural things developed regularly and orderly in the direction of an end, e.g., calves grew up to be cows and seed grew up to be plants. Moreover, things in nature develop to a "limit." Calves grow up to be cows, and then develop no more, which implies a limit or an end toward their development. Aristotle's observations - based as they were on truth - carried the day, and from Aristotle onward, any person who sought to examine nature was compelled to include in their description some idea of final cause.
Gilson's next chapter is on the "Mechanist Objection." In a nutshell, that objection, formulated by Rene Descarte and Francis Bacon, was that science ought to be useful, and that final cause was not useful. Gilson observes that the Aristotelian approach found its end in the "contemplation" of nature, and that "contemplation" was tied up with appreciating "final cause." Gilson notes that for scientists, the appreciation for the truth of a theory is often related to an appreciation of the beauty of a theory, which is itself tied up in the wonder of "final cause." However, a scientific approach that incorporates final cause may find that science is being "retarded" in its ability to produce practical results as scientists become "critics" of nature, rather than "mechanics."
So, for Bacon and Descarte, "final cause" had to go, not because it was wrong, but because it was either not useful, or it was retarding scientists from focusing on the useful.
After clearing the ground, Gilson then addresses the history of the idea of evolution. Gilson's argument here seems to be that neither "fixism" - the idea that species were fixed from the beginning - and "transformism" - the idea that species change over time - is conceptually opposed to the idea of final cause. In fact, it seems that Darwin was not opposed to the idea of final cause, but on one occasion accepted the congratulations of a friend that he had restored final cause to science.
The truth appears to be that Darwin simply wasn't concerned with final cause. Being nurtured in an understanding of science that had developed after Bacon, final cause simply wasn't a thing that Darwin was concerned about.
Darwin's big target was the idea of "special creation." Gilson argues that when Darwin felt that his observations disproved special creation, it meant that the Bible could not be trusted by itself as an accurate description of truth. From that point on, it seems, Darwin made common cause with those "partisans" who opposed "special creation," whether or not they accepted Darwin's notion of natural selection, or its chief competitor, Lamarckianism.
One of the partisans who came into Darwin's camp, even though Darwin did not like him personally, was Herbert Spencer. It was Spencer who popularized the notion of "evolution," not Darwin. According to Gilson, in his first editions of the Origin of the Species, Darwin did not use evolution, rather he spoke of "transformation." It was Spencer who spoke of "evolution," but in Spencer's usage evolution had a clear teleology in that their was an internal dynamic by which things progressed from the simple to the complex. Eventually, Darwin began to speak of his theory as "evolution," but by doing so he incorporated, sotto voce, Spencer's teleology.
Gilson discusses other contributors to Darwinism. His take-down of Parson Thomas Malthus is a must-read masterpiece of the art of ironically damning someone with faint praise.
So, Darwinism, or "evolution", did not eliminate the notion of final cause, and how could it if final cause is true? Rather, Darwinism is either irrelevant to the notion of final cause or it incorporates that notion without explicitly acknowledging that it does.
Gilson ends his book by explaining why we ought to continue to think that final cause is necessary for our understanding of truth. That reason primarily is that we see it all around us, even if we don't have a mechanistic explanation for it. Gilson notes, for example, that one of the things that we see in evolutionary development is a progress toward individuation: slime mold is less individual than plants which are less individual than bees which are less individual than cows which are less individual than lions which are less individual than human beings, who have a mind and self-awareness. Is this observation wrong? No. Can it be explained mechanistically? No. Does this teleology, showing a development toward limits, exist? Yes.
Is this science? Probaby not, but it seems to be "common sense" as that term was classically understood as meaning a first order inference from undisputed facts and ideas. To paraphrase a source quoted by Gilson, scientists need to be careful in ruling out "common sense" because where the results of a scientific inquiry conflict too strongly with common sense, it may not be common sense that is wrong.
Gilson concludes by pointing out that final cause may not be scientifically useful, but it is a necessary concept for understanding reality, and it is attested to by numerous real world examples. Its truth may not be scientifically verifiable, but many things we take for granted are not scientifically verifiable. The meaning of ideas, for example, is not scientifically verifiable. We hear words, but the meanings behind the sounds and symbols that are words cannot be measured. Meanings are sense independent, and, in fact, immaterial. Does that mean that meanings don't exist?
Likewise, science relies a variety of theoretical principles to reach its conclusions, including Occam's razor, the principle of least action, etc. Why are those things any more true and real than final cause? Gilson concludes with the following:
"Compared to generalizations such as the principle of least action, economy of thought, and other similar ones, the notion of natural teleology cuts a modest figure. It can be reproached for being anthropomorphic, but in a science which is the work of man, what is not? Furthermore, the important thing is to know whether or not it expresses a fact given in nature for if we object to final causality as an explanation, it remains as a fact to be explained."
Gilson's book is difficult, but I think that on reflection - and reflection is required to put together Gilson's arguments - it pays dividends.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful.
''It is not foolhardy to believe that the eye is made for seeing.''
By Clay Garner
Gilson's book contains something rare for scholarly essays: humor. Irony, satire, sarcasim, gibes, even light ridicule are all there. This is not your pretentious English professor, this is your witty French philosophe. This makes the dense analysis of ideas and intellectual history easier to endure. Make no mistake, the reader will need mental endurance, but the reward of real treasure is worth every moment.
Two fundamental themes are considered. One, the truth of ''mechanism'', or the belief that only atoms really exist. All other things are just combinations of atoms. Life is just atoms, therefore it really is not scientific. This is called scientific reductionism.
''The second pressing question is the truth of scientism, the (usually) implicit philosophical claim that modern science provides the best or even the only valid answers to the questions raised by human reason as it considers the world around us.''
Why Darwin's doctrine overwhelmingly adopted and so quickly?
''Before Darwin, biological reality seemed beyond the reach of the new science according to its preferred mode of explanation. With Darwin, the dominant Newtonian-Laplacian model of chance and necessity was at last brought to bear on biology and the origin of the diversity of living things. That fact alone helps explain the amazing speed at which evolutionism in some form swept aside all objections and became regnant in biological science within mere decades of the publication of The Origin of Species, where it remains to this day.''
Newton's stunning success explaining physics created envy. Biological science wanted glory. Unfortunately, biology is not physics and life is not just atoms in motion.
''The world is full of people who believe in God, but is almost bereft of people who believe in the full power of human reason.'' Reason reveals a reality that observation cannot disclose. Galileo said Copernicus's theory ''was a rape of the senses.''
''It is not foolhardy to believe that the eye is made for seeing.” Profound!
''For a scientist to be able to say something like that, it would have to be that it appeared to him to be a scientific statement. He is not trying to deceive others; he simply deceives himself. The pure mechanist in biology is a man whose entire activity has as its end the discovery of the “how” of the vital operations in plants and animals. Looking for nothing else, he sees nothing else, and since he cannot integrate other things in his research, he denies their existence. This is why he sincerely denies the existence, however evident, of final causality.''
Preface
Aristotelian Prologue
The Mechanist Objection
Finality and Evolution
-A. Fixism
-B. Transformism
- 1. Lamarck
- 2. Darwin without Evolution
- 3. Evolution without Darwin
- 4. Darwin and Malthus
- 5. Evolution and Teleology
IV. Bergsonism and Teleology
V. The Limits of Mechanism
VI. The Constants of Biophilosophy
APPENDIX I. Linnaeus: Observations on the Three Kingdoms of Nature
APPENDIX II. Darwin in Search of Species
Notes
'''Allow me to quote on this theme the scientist, medical doctor, and philosopher Leon Kass:''
''Though there is today a growing debate about the mechanisms of evolution, the reigning orthodoxy still credits accidental mutation and natural selection as the major means of evolutionary change. Yet very few people have noticed that this nonteleological explanation of change not only assumes but even depends upon the immanent teleological character of all living organisms.''
''The desire or tendency of living things to stay alive and their endeavor to reproduce, both of which are among the minimal conditions of Darwinian theory, are taken for granted and unexplained. It is only part of an explanation to say that those beings with no tendency to maintain and reproduce themselves have died out.''
'''Why are the other ones, the self-maintaining and reproducing beings, here at all? They are not teleological because they have survived; on the contrary, they have survived (in part) because they are teleological. Can evolutionary biology tell us why a nonteleological nature would generate and sustain teleological beings? Or why, over time, it would give rise to higher organisms, with a fuller range of powers of awareness, desire and action?''
''Do we really understand what we are claiming when we accept the view that a mindless universe gave rise to mind?''
''We are not drifting away from our problem. We are at its center, for since the efficient cause [cause m�canique] is the only one that gives us a grip on nature, it is the only one worth knowing. Even if there were final causality, which Descartes denied but Bacon admitted, there is no place for it in a science whose end is to make us masters and possessors of nature.''
Lust for power vs desire for knowledge.
''Final causality by its very nature is not susceptible of being refashioned. It is superfluous to say that birds are made for flying; that is obvious. But if anyone wishes to show how birds fly, we would be tempted to construct some flying machines. If philosophy identifies true knowledge with useful knowledge, as modern scientism does, final causality will be by the same stroke eliminated from nature and from science as a useless fiction.''
This analysis provides food for thought. Gilson is defending Teleology -not Theology. As he explains, Aristotle saw that teleology is a fact. He was not a Jew or a Christian or Muslim.
(See - ''Darwin's House of Cards: A Journalist's Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates'' by Tom Bethell; this work explains Darwinism is a philosophy - not science.)
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword PDF
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword EPub
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword Doc
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword iBooks
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword rtf
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword Mobipocket
From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution, by Etienne Gilson, Foreword Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar