better known, and this confusion is disappearing.
The species, then, whether it is the systematic group of the biological
systems, or the elementary species based on the study of variability
and inheritance, is an intellectual construction: an artifice designed
to facilitate our description of nature. This is clearly the case with
the higher orders of groups in classifications: genera, families,
orders, classes, and phyla express logical relationships, or describe
in a hypothetical form our notions of an evolutionary process. But
species, it may be said, have an actual reality: there are no genera in
nature, only species. These categories of organisms really exist; they
have individuality, a certain kind of organic unity, inasmuch as the
individuals composing them have descended from a common ancestor. Yet
just as much may be said of genera, families, and the other groupings.
One species originates from another by a process of transmutation:
a genus is a group of species which have all had a common origin; a
family is a similarly related group of genera, and so on. The higher
categories of biological science are intended to introduce order and
simplification into the confusion and richness of nature as we observe
it, but obviously the concept of the species has the same practical
object. Must we then say that there are no species in nature, only
individuals? If so, we are at once embarrassed by the difficulty of
forming a clear notion of what is meant by organic individuality. Does
it not indicate that life on the earth is really integral, and that our
analysis of its forms--species, genera, families, and so on--are only
convenient ways of dealing actively with all its richness?
Systematic biology is a very matter-of-fact occupation, and one is
surprised to find upon reflection how he, in his handling of the
concepts of the science, follows the methods of ancient philosophy.
In classical metaphysical systems mutability was an illusion. Behind
the confusion and change given to sensation there is something that
is immutable and eternal. If there is change there is something that
changes; or, at least there ought to be something that changes when it
is perceived through the mists of sensation, just as the image of a
well-known object on the horizon wavers and is distorted by refraction.
This immutable reality is the Form or Essence of the Platonic Idea:
that which is in some way degraded by its projection into materiality,
so that we become aware of it only through our imperfect organs of
sense. We do not see the Form itself, but its quality rather, the Form
with something added or something taken away from it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account