This embedded functionality starts all the way down at the bottom, at the level of atoms and molecules. (iii) embedded functionality: living things are built from the bottom up, by intrinsically adapted parts whose entire repertoire of functionality is “dedicated” to supporting the functionality of the whole unit which they comprise. (ii) a nested hierarchy of organization (in which macromolecules are nested into organelles, organelles into cells, cells are nested into tissues, tissues into organs, and organs into an organism), whose formation and maintenance is governed by the master program and (i) a master program controlling the organism’s internal parts and their internal interactions from the top down, and also governing the organism’s vital processes and biological functions – especially nutrition, growth and reproduction I contend that a living thing is a thing possessing all of the following features: Second, we can define a living thing in terms of its form.
Still, we might ask: how do we know which things have a “good of their own”? Empirically, what distinguishes them from other things? Our first definition captures the essence of a living thing, but it is far too vague for scientists to use. Only living things can properly be said to benefit, because they possess a good of their own. These things are not the sort of things that can meaningfully be said to benefit from anything. For example, soil, water and sunlight are good for a plant but it simply makes no sense to say that anything is “good for” soil, good for water, or good for sunlight. However, this internal unity of natural objects does not mean that we can speak of anything as being good for them. The atoms in crystals, for instance, are bound together by strong chemical bonds. Additionally, these things possess an internal unity, and may resist being taken apart. The effect they tend towards can be called their telos. Insofar as these objects consistently tend towards determinate effects, again and again, they are displaying future-oriented behavior. This is evident from the fact that they behave in accordance with scientific laws. A living thing is a thing with a good of its own.Īll kinds of natural objects have a built-in tendency to produce certain determinate effects, under the right circumstances. However, the formal features cannot be understood without reference to finalistic concepts, which is why a purely formal characterization of life could never succeed.įirst, we can define a living thing in terms of its unique kind of finality. In other words, a material object is alive and has a good of its own if, and only if, it possesses these formal features. (ii) for biological organisms, having a “good of its own” goes hand-in-hand with unique formal features which characterize living things. (i) having a “good of its own” is a property of all living things, and only living things, and that it defines the meaning of “life” and
In formulating them, I have endeavored to marry the best insights of Aristotle’s philosophy and modern science.
Artifact meaning biology full#
The views I present below are my own, and I take full responsibility for them. It would be a terrible thing if we ended up talking past each other in what promises to be an interesting philosophical exchange, so I shall do my best to prevent that happening. Reading Michael Sullivan’s latest blog posts, I realized that I had not been precise enough in my definitions of what a living thing is, and of what an artifact is. Before I continue, I would like to congratulate Michael Sullivan for successfully defending his dissertation on Friday, April 23. The Smithy, a Web site devoted to the life, times, and thought of the Subtle Doctor, the Blessed John Duns Scotus, has recently weighed in on the ID controversy, with three recent posts by Michael Sullivan in response to my post, In Praise of Subtlety.
0 kommentar(er)
