Self-organized bodies, between Politics and Biology. A political reading of Aristotle’s concepts of Soul and Pneuma
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.005Słowa kluczowe
Self-organization, System, Government, Circulation, AutarchyAbstrakt
The idea of a self-organized system brings both political and biological discourses together, for they both aim at explaining how a certain compound can achieve self-unity out of plurality. Whereas biological metaphors in politics have been much examined, political metaphors in biology have not. In this paper I intend to show how political metaphors can enlighten biological discourses, taking the work of Aristotle as a case-study. The relationship between the main elements of a living-body could be better understood within a political scheme: the soul rules over the body through pneuma, its prime minister. This scheme entails, thus, to re-examine Aristotle’s definition of soul in the light of the key concept of pneuma, and to replace the hylemorphic explanation with a triadic one. On the one hand, soul is the entelecheia of the body as it keeps both the form and the end of the organism, which is its unity. On the other hand, the moving-efficacious principle that performs unity by circulating through the body, and by linking the body to its environment is pneuma. Therefore, the political formula: “the king does not govern” could shed light upon the structure of the living body: whereas the soul rules the body, pneuma governs it. Although Aristotle does not build his biology upon political concepts, metaphors are already there, shaping his explanations, within the bio-theo-political paradigm of autarchy.
Bibliografia
Aristotle. On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On breath. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Loeb Classical Library. 2000. Trans. by W.S. Hett.
Aristotle. Generation of animals. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Loeb Classical Library Trans. A. L. Peck
Aristotle. History of animals. Books VII-X. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Loeb Classical Library 1991. Trans. D. M. Balme.
Aristotle. Parts of animals. Movement of animals. Progression of animals. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Loeb Classical Library Trans. A. L. Peck and E. S. Forster. 1998.
Aristotle. Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Loeb Classical Library Trans. H. Rackham. 1998.
Aristotle. De Mundo. Reale, G.; Bos, A. (1995). Il trattato Sul cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Balmes, D M. (1987). “The place of biology in Aristotle’s philosophy”, in: Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, ed. by Gotthelf, Allan and Lennox, James G., 392-407. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9-20.
Balan, B. (1975). “Premières recherches sur l’origine et la formation du concept d’économie animale”, Revue d’Histoire des sciences, 28/4 : 289-326.
Blair, G (1967) “The meaning of Energeia and Entelecheia in Aristotle”, International Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 7, nro. 1.
Blair, G (1993) “Aristotle on entelecheia: A reply to Daniel Graham”, in: The American Journal of Philology, vol. 114, n. 1, 91-97.
Bono, J (1984). “Medieval spirits and the medieval language of life”, in: Traditio, 40: 91-130.
Bos, A P (2003) The Soul and its Instrumental Body. A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Philosophy of Living Nature. Leiden: Brill.
Bourdieu, P (2012). Sur l’État: Cours au Collège de France (1989-1992). Paris: Éditions Raison d’Agir / Éditions du Seuil.
Chen, C H (1958) “The relation between the terms energeia and entelecheia in the philosophy of Aristotle”, Classical Quarterly 52: 12-17.
Cheung, Tobias (2006). “From the Organism of a Body to the Body of an Organism: Occurrences and Meaning of the Word ‘Organism’ from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries”, in: The British Journal for the History of Sciences, 39/3: 319-339.
Descartes, René (1996). “L’ Homme”, en: Adam, C. y Tannery, A. Oeuvres de Descartes. Paris: Vrin, vol. XI, pp. 120-215.
Esposito, R (2002) Immunitas. Torino: Einaudi.
Freeland, C. (1987). “Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality”, in: Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, ed. by Gotthelf, Allan and Lennox, James G., 392-407. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 392-407.
Freudenthal, G. (1995) Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance. Heat and Pneuma, Form and Soul. Oxford.
Graham, D (1989). “The Etymology of Entelecheia”, in: The American Journal of Philology, vol. 110, n. 1, 73-80.
Grassi, M (2018a). “Life as Autarchy: Deconstructing Bio-Theological Paradigm”, in: Science, Religion and Culture, 5/1 (2018): 1-12.
Grassi, M (2018b). “A Self-Moved Mover: The paradigm of autarchy in Jürgen Moltmann’s theology”, in: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology (2018).
Gregoric, P et alter (2015). “The Substance of De Spiritu”, in: Early Science and Medicine, 20: 101-124.
Hobbes, T (2012) Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press (ed.: Malcolm, N.).
Katayama, E. G. (2008). “Substantial Unity and Living Beings in Aristotle”, Apeiron, 41/3: 99-128.
Keyt, D (1989) “The meaning of Bios in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics”, Ancient Philosophy 9, 15-21.
Liesen, L; Walsh, M B (2012). “The competing meanings of biopolitics in political science: Biological and postmodern approaches to politics”, Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 31, n. 1/2: 2-15.
Miller (2005) “Aristotle’s Metaphysics as the Ontology of Being-Alive and its Relevance Today”, in: Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy, 20 (1): 1-107.
Oderberg, David (2013). “Synthetic Life and the Brutness of Immanent Causation”, in: Feser, E. (ed.) Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. Pasadena City College, California: Palgrave Macmillan: 206-235.
Tracy, T. (1983) “Heart and Soul in Aristotle”, Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, vol. 2 (ed. J. P. Anton), 321-39.
Tweedale, M (1990) “Aristotle´s motionless soul”, Dialogue 29: 123-132.
Wilson, L. G. (1959) “Erasistratus, Galen and the Pneuma”, in: Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 33, n. 4: 293-314.
Wolfe, Ch.; Terada, M. (2008). “The Animal Economy as Object and Program in Montpellier Vitalism”, Science in Context, 21/4: 537-579.
Zavadil, J. (2007) Anatomy of the Body Politic: Organic metaphors In Ancient and Medieval Political Thought. Arizona State University. PhD Dissertation.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2019 Scientia et Fides

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
CC BY ND 4.0. Posiadaczem prawa autorskiego (Licencjodawcą) jest Autor, który na mocy umowy licencyjnej udziela nieodpłatnie prawa do eksploatacji dzieła na polach wskazanych w umowie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji niewyłącznej na korzystanie z Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego w następujących polach eksploatacji: a) utrwalanie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; b) reprodukowanie (zwielokrotnienie) Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego drukiem i techniką cyfrową (e-book, audiobook); c) wprowadzania do obrotu egzemplarzy zwielokrotnionego Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; d) wprowadzenie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego do pamięci komputera; e) rozpowszechnianie utworu w wersji elektronicznej w formule open access na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 3.0) poprzez platformę cyfrową Wydawnictwa Naukowego UMK oraz repozytorium UMK.
- Korzystanie przez Licencjobiorcę z utrwalonego Utworu ww. polach nie jest ograniczone czasowo ilościowo i terytorialnie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji do Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego nieodpłatnie na czas nieokreślony
PEŁEN TEKST UMOWY LICENCYJNEJ >>
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 1193
Liczba cytowań: 1