Darwin and Aristotle

Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) represent the greatest dichotomy of thought regarding the concept of time and its influence upon natural history (science) and philosophy. Separated by the vastness of time and intellectual advancements of their respective eras, the temporal concepts of finitude (infinity and the finite) are juxtaposed within both a cosmological and a human ontological and ideological framework. In the works of both thinkers, issues concerning the temporal nature of the universe, Earth, and humankind were explored for the ultimate understanding of both humanity and humankind's place in nature. With the combination of both acute observations of the natural world and rational speculation, Darwin's and Aristotle's individual contributions marked a theoretical shift that brought about a conceptual revolution that still reverberates in the modern world. A diachronic perspective, as in this entry, affords a comparative view of the conflicting metaphysical basis of time and the human experience as understood by these two key figures.

Aristotle, father of biology, taxonomy, and logic, provided a comprehensive view of nature that was separate from prevalent or traditional mythology or superstition. Although some works survive only in fragmentary form, his noted works titled Physics and Metaphysics provided essential clues as to the conceptualization of time, being, and ontological fulfillment within a logical and categorical framework. In this framework, matter and form became united within a developing and finite ontology and finitely directed teleology of the underlying substance (essence). The implications for species' ontogeny, especially with the human primate, become explicitly clear when examining the nature of change and humans' relationship within the natural world.

The relationship between a geocentric universe and nature was depicted as a series of processed actualization, such as an ebbing flow of potentiality to actuality, within the backdrop of the eternal and finite universe. Individual development, initiated and sustained by the “four causes” of change, results in the actualization of being. Categorically, each being expresses the qualitative “soul” that is essential in the Form for that particular living thing, example, vegetative, sensitive, and rational. Expressions of the soul, driven by the final cause, manifest themselves in terms of motion (e.g., spatiotemporal measurement of physical growth and development). Although physical changes are expressed (e.g., ontogenetic development), the substance and incorporated soul of living things remains fixed. For Aristotle, species are fixed within nature. However, it is important to note that the cosmological aspect of all motion is eternal and originated from the Unmoved Mover. It is the form and substance of the universe expressing a final cause from an eternal logos, or nous. The eternal and infinite intelligibility of the world reflects both the infinite and the finite nature of humankind.

Aristotle's depiction of humankind's place in nature is anthropocentric, whereby humankind is placed at the earthly apex within the Great Chain of Being. This placement is directly related to the human species' possession of a rational soul and the ever-present potentiality of reason with the possibility of actualization. In terms of the temporal nature of being human, Aristotle acknowledges the finite aspect of existence. The soul, by which existence is irrevocably linked to form, became viewed as temporally finite. Upon death, when animus ceases, the existence of matter and form are terminated in nonexistence. The psychological [Page 270]conception of time, on an individual level, is closely linked with the awareness of this mortality. In its totality, each species lives out its categorical existence within clearly defined ideological ends. For the human species, this Aristotelian perspective provides both psychological security and stability, that is, ontological and ideological justification for ethical and political structures. Furthermore, these ideas were later adopted and adapted for theological purposes by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), whereby the conceptualization presented by Aristotle, along with scriptural interpretation and dogmatic thought, set the prevalent tone in the Western mind, in which the sciences operated. Nevertheless, changes in philosophical thought and the empirical sciences were established. The greatest divergence can be seen in the discoveries and theoretical perspectives of Darwin.

...