Socrates and Plato

While Socrates (470-399 BC) may solely be mentioned as the master who outlined

the philosophical principles which were fully developed by Plato (428-347 BC),

the latter, though he was not interested in biology as such and gave no positive contribution to it, had such a pervasive influence also on biologists during the following centuries, even though his teachings were distorted almost beyond recognition, so that we must give him some attention. Plato was mainly interested in purely rational approaches to problems, rather than in empirical observations, but he was sure that philosophy was a single, coherent system covering at one time mankind and all its problems as well as all natural phenomena. Moreover the Academy, Plato’s school, was the environment where Aristotle developed his genius, and to him we owe the tradition of the prominent place that the study of nature must have in philosophy. Almost all Plato’s ideas in the field of natural history are expounded in the Timaeus, possibly the worst of his ‘dialogues’. This is extremely long and tedious, but, nonetheless, had a great importance, as its Latin translation by Calcidius was the only Platonic dialogue known in the West during early medieval times. This dialogue, also because of the continuous influence of Neoplatonic tradition on scientists until the 17th century, had a far greater influence than it deserves. All in all, if we consider biology properly, Plato could effectively be disregarded, as he never made any observation on animals and plants and barely mentions biological problems. However, since the idealistic approach of Plato had a great influence on the subsequent development of biology and more generally on the sciences and caused aconsiderable change in outlook on its  problems as well. Plato, in order to refute the Sophists, takes his start from their gnoseologic doubts and their taking man as the yardstick by which all things shall be measured; but he then created an anthropocentric system where the paramount values are spiritual ones. If we limit ourselves to natural sciences, and we ignore his ethics and his theories of knowledge, Plato’s anthropocentric philosophy had a damaging influence on the development of sciences, though neither he nor Socrates, in true Greek fashion, ever supposed that the universe had been created for the benefit of mankind, as was believed by not a few thinkers of monotheistic faith. Also the Platonic concept of ‘Eidos’, which is that the Archetype of anything, its idea, pre-exists to the thing itself played a negative role in sciences, in spite of the prompt criticism by Aristotle. On the whole it is difficult to estimate the precise influence of Platonism on biology which was,nevertheless,considerable. In a sense, even if it may look like a paradox, Plato might be considered as the founder of systematics or, at least of that type of systematics where the concept of ‘archetype’ is more or less presumed in the formal description of a taxon. Linnean systematics are often quoted as an example of this type of systematics, but, as we shall see, this is a complete misunderstanding of Linnaeus’ ideas.

Plato maintains that a horse, for instance, meaning any particular horse we see, is

just a more or less accurate material expression of an ideal ‘horse’ which exists and is, in itself perfect and eternal. Therefore the naturalist should, according Plato, strive to understand and know that pre-existing and eternal idea or form of horse by studying as many individual horses as he can (and Chrysippus commented: “Oh, Plato, I can see the horses, but not the horseness!” There is no question that Plato succeeded admirably in showing the imperfection of the knowledge that we can get from our sensations. But from that he derived a gratuitous corollary: that true knowledge can be reached only by pure reasoning. He therefore gave the naturalist the task of acquiring, starting from observable things, the knowledge of

ideas and of laws, which are both unchangeable and eternal. This little devil lingered in the practice of biology and is at the root of what is erroneously called the typological concept of taxa, which should more correctly be termed ‘the idealistic concept’.

REFERENCE

Alberto Mario Simonetta, Short history of biology from

the origins to the 20th century, ISBN 88-8453-108-X

© 2003, Firenze University Press