by Gordon L. Ziniewicz
1. Plato is a mathematician. Aristotle is a natural scientist
(his father was a surgeon). Plato's view is geometrical and
static (recall the importance of order for Plato). Aristotle's
view is biological and dynamic. In Greek, the word physis
means not just "nature," but "emergent nature," "erupting
nature." The image of emerging nature is best depicted in
the emergence of the oak tree from the acorn. The living thing
comes out of hiding, as it were; it takes shape out of an
indefinite and potential source. Whereas in Plato we see the
conscious forming of unformed stuff according to a master
blueprint, in Aristotle we see the conscious or unconscious
striving of natural beings for self-realization, self-actualization,
and self-fulfillment. It is the urge for relative independence
and complete life that we see in Aristotle's picture of the
Question: Explain how and why a mathematician and
a biologist might see the universe differently.
2. Plato uses the model of craftsmanship to explain making
a life, making a city, or making a cosmos. Aristotle uses the
same craftsmanship language. But, because he sees a crucial difference
between living beings and artificial beings, Aristotle is aware
that the model of craftmanship is not entirely adequate to explain
Question: Why do you suppose the model of craftsmanship
might be in adequate to explain life?
3. For Aristotle, the natural is distinct from and superior
to the artificial; life is more important than products. As Ralph
Waldo Emerson wrote in "Circles,": "That which builds is better
than that which is built." Nature -- in this case, human nature
-- is more important than, better than human products. The people
who build a temple are more important than the temple itself.
For Aristotle, as for most Greeks, what is by nature is always
best. Techne or art (craft) imitates nature; it is not
as efficient as nature. The purpose of craft is to supplement,
to assist nature; it cannot replace it.
Question: How would Aristotle's view that the natural
is superior to the artificial be received today?
4. For Aristotle, there is only one world, the world of the particular
things we experience -- trees, horses, shoes, people, temples, etc.
There is no separate world of perfect (ideal) forms. There is no
ultimate heavenly blueprint of the perfect maple tree, which all
imperfect maple trees imitate; nor is there an otherworldly blueprint
of the perfect city or the perfect human life. We must learn how
to live in private or public, not by reflecting upon a pure idea,
but by observing and understanding real just (more or less just)
people and cities. We do not arrange our lives in accordance with
an ideal model; we live our lives in imitation of the best actual
citizens we see around us. The real things that surround us -- those
are what we see and attempt to understand. To know what a maple
tree is in general is to look at a number of maple trees and discover
what they have in common. Aristotle is an empiricist, not an idealist.
Question: From an "ethical point of view," what is
gained and what is lost in Aristotle's revision of Plato?
Question: How do living "role models" differ from
5. The things or events around us are of two kinds: those
things or events that are or occur by nature and those things
or events that are or occur through human intervention (artificial).
There is a third category that we will not deal with at this time
-- the factor of chance. Nature, human beings, and chance are
three basic "causes." People share customs (nomoi), humanly made
6. The polis is composed of both natural beings (human beings
and domestic animals, as well as plants) and artificial beings
(products, institutions, laws, language, etc.). Not only are people
natural, but their being together in the city is also natural.
Aristotle would say that people are by nature social, that is,
they have an inclination, a tendency, to gather together. They
like and need each other. On the other hand, people live together
in artificial or conventional or instituted ways.
Question: Do you agree that human beings are
by nature social? State and defend an alternative view.
7. Aristotle's vision of nature is biological (life-centered)
and teleological (full of ends and purposes). The universe,
for Aristotle, is a series of layers, from the least developed
and least sophisticated beings to the most developed and most
sophisticated beings. It is a hierarchy that ascends a scale
from undeveloped potential matter (unformed stuff) to perfect
form (God). In order to understand these layers, we have to
appreciate that, for Aristotle, all the things we see around
us are changing. According to Aristotle, there are four kinds
1) coming to be and passing away (birth and death)
2) increase and decrease (growth and decay)
3) alteration (change in quality -- such as change of color)
4) change of place (movement from place to place -- can
be straight line or circular movement)
Change is always for Aristotle the actualization of some
potential. What can be changes to (becomes) what is. What previously
lacked form now possesses form (takes shape). A seed can become
a plant. An acorn changes -- that is, grows to become -- an
oak. A human being who can be a piano player but is not in fact
a piano player, changes into a piano player. An orangutan does
not have the potential to become a piano player; he cannot change
into a Chopin. Certain things have certain potentials; a tulip
bulb cannot become an oak tree.
Question: "Self-realization" or "self-actualization"
or "realization of potential" are issues often talked about in
our day. One should note that Aristotle had the idea first. Name
some modern educators, psychologists, or social scientists who
emphasize such themes.
8. What exists by nature? Earth, water, air, fire (the four
elements), plants, animals, human beings, stars and planets, and
God. Why do we say these exist by nature? Because they all have
within them their own tendency to change, grow, etc. They have
an innate tendency to change; they themselves strive for their
own ends; they are more or less independent (depending on their
grade of being). Wood cannot become a table by itself. An acorn
can and does grow into an oak by itself. Plants grow by themselves;
they have life. Aristotle makes this distinction: the natural
has within itself (inside of itself) a cause of motion or change;
the artificial has its cause of motion or change outside of itself.
The inner principle of motion in living things we call soul; if
something moves itself, it is besouled. Soul is an inward cause
of motion. If one touches what looks like a dead twig and the
twig moves, it means that the twig is alive (an insect that looks
like a twig). It has a "mind of its own" (however small). It is
self-determining. The layers are these:
1st) The elements (earth, water, fire, air), out of which
all bodies are composed, exist and act by nature. How? According
to Aristotle, each element seeks its own proper place in the
universe. It has within itself a tendency to move upward or
downward. Light things rise; heavy things fall. Earth seeks
its natural place (the center of the earth). Fire seeks its
natural place (the farthest reach of the heavens). Insofar as
things are made of natural elements, they retain the natural
tendencies of the basic elements. This book can fall by itself.
It doesn't need me to help it fall. Smoke rises by itself; that
is its nature. It doesn't need me to lift it. For Aristotle,
motion upward and downward is not due to an external force (such
as gravitation); it is due to the innate tendency of the elements
themselves. If unmixed and unimpeded, all fire and air would
move upward, and all water and earth would attain their natural
2nd) Plants grow by themselves. They have the powers of
nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Because they are made up
of elements, they retain the natural tendencies of upward and
downward, but they have added tendencies. The end or goal of
a plant is not a place, but a form. What plants strive for,
what they tend to maintain, reach, and reproduce is the form
of their species. The end of the acorn is the form of the oak.
The miracle is that the oak can reproduce its own form by itself.
Joyce Kilmer wrote: "Poems are made by fools like me, but only
God can make a tree." As far as Aristotle is concerned, trees
are not made by any craftsman or creator. Trees make trees.
They can do it on their own.
3rd) Each stage or layer incorporates the others. Plants
can be heavy or light; they are formed from material elements.
But their form, their life, exceeds these elements. A living
being is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts;
it is "besouled." Animals incorporate the nature of the elements
and the nature of plants. They too are made up of heavy and
light elements (elephants fall when dropped). They too nourish
themselves, grow to maturity, and reproduce. Elephants pass
on the form of the elephant (I don't know where you would get
a stork big enough). But they have, by nature, certain powers
lacking in elements and plants. They have the power of sensation
and locomotion. They can sense things at a distance, and they
can move around. They are less dependent on their immediate
environment than are plants. The principle or cause of this
sensation or locomotion is the soul within each. Soul is an
inner cause of motion or change.
4th) Human beings, like plants and animals, are made up
of elements. They too nourish themselves, grow to maturity,
and reproduce. They too can sense or perceive things around
them and can move around. But what humans possess and animals
lack is the capacity for knowledge, the power to know. Animals
can experience, i.e., store memories of particulars. But only
human beings can generalize -- can find the universal in the
particular, can arrive at general concepts and general judgments
that go beyond immediate experience. Human beings can transcend
their immediate experience andimmediate perception and can,
by means of science, understand what they have not directly
experienced. Human beings can not only move around from place
to place; they can soar above and beyond particular places by
means of concepts. Human beings are less dependent on their
immediate environment than are plants or animals. The rise from
lower to higher species is equally an ascent to greater independence
and self-reliance (we will see later that the most independent
and self-reliant being is God -- who needs and knows nothing
5th) The sun, moon, stars, planets have a unique existence.
Plants, animals, and humans are not eternal; as individuals,
they come to be and pass away. What persists, what does not
pass away, is the form of the species. For Aristotle, species
or general forms are eternal (always were and will be), even
though individuals come and go. The goal of individual plants
and animals is their species. The goal of human beings includes
both the maintenance of their own species and the knowledge
of all species. Human beings are within the universe bodily,
but strive to comprehend the universe (surround it) with their
minds. It is their task to understand the whole of which they
are a part. The sun, moon, and stars are eternal. Their motion
is circular and does not come to an end. They are made of a
special kind of fifth element that does not perish. Thus, the
heavenly bodies are both superior to and inferior to human beings.
Because they last, they are superior to human bodies; because
they do not understand themselves and the universe as a whole,
they are inferior to human minds.
6th) God is perfect form and exists unchanging beyond the
farthest stars. God does not know that there is a universe beyond
himself; God forever contemplates his own contemplation; he
is thought turned totally inward upon itself. He does not create
the universe (as Plato's demiurge), nor does he take care of
it (providentially). He is not the ruler of the universe. But
the universe needs him. The motion of the heavens is a perpetual
imitation of God's self-reflective activity. The heavens aim
at perfect form in the best way they can, by moving in a circle.
Plants and animals on earth in turn depend upon the motion of
the heavenly bodies (such as the sun and moon) for continued
growth and reproduction. But more on this later.
9. Thus, all natural beings have natural inner inclinations,
desires, tendencies for fulfillment appropriate to their own kind
or species. Nature is dynamic. It is of the nature of an acorn
to become an oak. It may never realize this potential; a squirrel
may eat it (violence is interference with natural process). But
it is not of the nature of the acorn to be eaten. It is its nature
to grow. It is not the natural purpose or end of an oak to be
made into tables and beds. The purpose of the oak is to survive
and continue the species. Many artificial productions involve
interference with the striving (life) of natural beings. This
is a necessary factor of life, that one natural being achieves
its purposes at the expense of other natural beings, their being
frustrated and cut off from realizing their goals. Violence is
the interference with the process of striving for fulfillment.
Question: According to Aristotle, plants and animals
have their own purposes, apart from human affairs. These purposes
are sometimes at odds with human purposes. Contrast this view
to the "biblical" view that humans should have dominion over the
earth and all its creatures. Discuss the effects of both views
on the domain ofnon-human nature. In this light, discuss the meaning
of "violence" (in Aristotle's terms).
10. All natural things seek fulfillment. They strive to live
and to grow to maturity. They seek their appropriate form. The
child wants to become an adult; the acorn wants to become an oak;
the chick wants to become a hen. This characteristic of striving
for ends is present in all natural things. The natural world is
a drama of seeds coming to fruition, of potentialities being actualized,
of forms reproducing themselves. Everything has an end. Human
ends we call goals or purposes. All living things (with the help
of their environment) have the power in themselves to realize
their ends. Aristotle's universe is a universe of many different
natures seeking many different ends. They do this by nature, i.e.,
because of an inclination or tendency (or soul).
11. The degree of life in anything is the degree to which
it can bring about its own fulfillment (its degree of autonomy,
self-sufficiency, or independence). The plant depends more upon
its immediate environment than animal or man does. For Aristotle,
anything has life to the extent that it contains its own principle
of change, its own life. Life exhibits self-movement and independence.
Question: According to Aristotle, a thing is alive
to the extent that it is self-moved and not moved by external
causes. Does freedom mean self-determination? Is independence
better than dependence? Why?
Question: In what ways are human beings dependent?
In what ways are human beings independent?
12. A work of art or craft does not have an inner impulse
to change. Products come about through the activity of an external
principle or cause. Beds, coats, tables do not make themselves.
You cannot plant a block of marble and get a statue. Wood does
not by nature become a table. Trees do not by nature become wood
(wood is a concept relating to human purposes). The nature of
a tree is to grow and live. Something outside of a tree causes
it to become lumber and furniture.
13. Yet, even in an artificial product, natural tendencies
are preserved. A bronze statue of a bird won't fly, but the nature
of the bronze will make it fall. If a car rusts, is it because
it is a car or because it is made of metal? If someone burns this
book, it is pulp that will burn, not Aristotle's lectures.
14. For Aristotle, the natural is better than the artificial
because it brings about its own completion; it has its own life.
It is self-moved; it gets itself going. For Aristotle, the self-moved
is better than that which is moved from without. A squirrel grows
by itself. A temple needs architects and stonemasons. Yet, according
to Aristotle, some natural things are more perfect than others.
That which is completely self-sufficient, that which finds fulfillment
in itself and does not need anything outside of itself, is most
perfect. In fact, that is Aristotle's notion of God.
15. But art (craft) imitates nature. Aristotle finds in both
nature and art a similar process. Natural and artificial things
can all be explained according to the same principles or reasons.
16. Even animals can know that something is. They can perceive
it. To really know something, according to Aristotle, is not to
know that it is, but why it is. What makes things to be the way
they are? What is responsible for things' being what they are?
To know anything is to know its causes or reasons. The Greek word
is arche, which means principle, cause, ruling element, origin,
source, beginning. Another word Aristotle uses is aition. The
original meaning of aition is the explanation or cause shown by
a litigant in court; what a person is responsible for, answerable
for. Aristotle wants to bring all things -- both natural and artificial
-- to court and to make them account for themselves, to explain
themselves, to tell what causes are responsible for their being
what they are. The four causes are --
1) the matter (material cause) -- that out of which
a thing comes to be and which persists under the new form -- what
it comes from, what it is made from: i.e., the bronze of a statue,
the wood of a table.
2) the form or "shape" (formal cause) -- the essence,
the definition, the species of a thing. Michelangelo's David --
marble and form of David. The sprouting plant assumes the form
of a jade plant.
3) the agent (mover), the moving cause of the change
or becoming (efficient cause). The sculptor is the active cause
of the statue. The parents are the causes of the coming-to-be
of the fetus; the growing child is, in part, the "cause" of his
4) the end or purpose (final cause) -- that for the
sake of which anything comes about. The universe is full of ends
and final causes. What is a thing for? In natural beings, formal
and final causes unite in the individual. The soul is the inner
active principle that seeks, moves toward realization of form.The
form of the oak is both the formal and final cause of the acorn's
To understand anything is to understand its matter, its form,
the external or internal force that moves it, and the end to which
it tends. For Aristotle, the universe is a hierarchy from matter
to form, from potentiality to actuality, from beginning to end,
from dependence to independence.
Question: Is this "craftsmanship language"? If a
thing is "besouled," is it in some sense its own agent or moving
cause? In what ways does craftsmanship language help to explain
life? In what ways does craftsmanship language obscure the difference
between living and artificial things? For example, what are the
problems of explaining the human body in terms of a machine?
17. Ends move beings by attraction. We will see later that
God moves the universe, not as an efficient cause, but as an end.
The universe admires and loves the self-sufficient perfection
of God. As admiration moves an admirer to do great things, perhaps
without the admired even knowing that the admirer exists, so the
universe moves (the fixed stars primarily) because it loves a
God who does not even know the universe exists. We will see later
how Christian theology used and changed this conception in order
to account for creation and providence.
18. The species continue because new individuals are continually
generated. But why should the whole process of generation (reproduction)
not come to an end? According to Aristotle there are "particular"
efficient causes and there are "universal" efficient causes. The
particular efficient cause of a living being is its parent. The
universal efficient cause of all coming-to-be (generation on earth)
is the sun and, in a more remote sense, the moon and planets as
well. The cycle of birth and death on earth continues indefinitely
because of the circular movement of the shining sun (rising and
setting and bringing seasonal changes), which makes life, growth,
and reproduction possible.
19. The sun, moon, and planets (except the earth, which lies
stationary in the center of the universe) are kept moving by the
motion of the stars (in a circle about the earth). The movement
of the stars is governed overall by the movement of the fixed
stars (the final sphere of the heavens). Why don't the fixed stars
stop moving and bring the whole process of change to a halt?
20. The fixed stars are "moved" (actually attracted by) a
"mover" that "moves" without moving (unmoved mover, God). God,
for Aristotle, is not an efficient cause, but a final cause (an
end desired and sought by the universe). God moves the universe
by being loved (without loving in return -- unrequited love on
a big scale). The desire of the fixed stars for fulfillment and
perfect being (perfect actuality) makes them imitate the motionless
perfection of God in the only way they know how -- by moving in
a circle. Movement in a circle is, in a sense, endless motion.
Unlike living beings who live in a straight line (from birth to
death) or inanimate beings who seek a definite place, the stars
do not come to an end. Thus, the eternity of the universe includes
the eternal nature of God, the heavenly bodies, the earth, the
elements, and the forms of the species (species persist, whereas
individual members of species come and go). At the top of the
pyramid is the unchanging form of God; at the bottom is the purely
Question: Explain how one who is admired can "move"
his admirer to accomplish great tasks without ever knowing that
the admirer exists.
21. God does not create or rule, as Plato's demiurge (craftsman)
and ruler-god (providence). In the Laws, Plato writes that anyone
who denies that God takes part in particular affairs is an atheist.
This is because for Plato, the best life (God, ruler, or citizen)
is a life that, basking in a vision of order (idea of the good)
orders the raw material of cosmos, city, and soul. For Plato,
self-improvement and political improvement are intertwined.
22. Aristotle's God does not know the universe exists. He
is eternally detached from particulars; he neither produces nor
governs. He has no friends, needs nothing outside of himself.
He is forever engaged in contemplation. His thought is self-directed
to the pure act of thought. He is pure mind. If a man's mind is
like a mirror, in which are reflected the myriads of forms (species)
of existing things, God is a mind that mirrors only itself.
23. Consider the intellectual attitude. Suppose you back away
from a particular thing in order to see it better. You see a bigger
picture. Suppose you back away even farther - infinitely farther,
so that particulars go completely out of view. Even general forms
disappear. That would be a pure state of "objective" detachment
that coils back upon itself: a mind even without concepts. Aristotle's
God is the essence of intellectual detachment. The big picture
- the biggest picture of all is no picture.
Question: If the best human life imitates the life
of God, explain how Plato's and Aristotle's views might lead to
24. Human beings are not gods. They have minds - and bodies.
The desire for knowledge is the urge of the soul to imitate God
as far as possible, i.e. by enjoying knowledge of the order of
the universe. This knowledge is enjoyed for its own sake; that
is, it does not aim at some end outside of itself, such as practical
or political activity or any kind of production. It is knowledge
for its own sake. But because humans have bodies, they have needs
that can only be fulfilled in concert with other bodies in the
city. The soul is the life of the body. The mind cannot pursue
independent scientific contemplation without the body being nourished
by agricultural and productive efforts, etc. Thus, the necessities
of life must be secured - one must have leisure - in order to
pursue scientific wisdom. One must pay attention to practical
and political affairs insofar as these may facilitate or obstruct
contemplation. If a city is at war, the philosopher-scientist
will not be able to do his work.
25. God does not need friends, but human beings (as body/soul
composites) need friends. Speech or dialogue with another is desirable.
But the scientist can enjoy his findings alone. Knowing is superior
to speaking. Teaching is speaking what one already knows (general
scientific knowledge). But the happiest moment is the moment of
knowing that one knows - an essentially individual occupation.
26. For Aristotle, happiness comes down to the achievement
of excellence (virtue). But the excellence of the intellect or
intellectual virtue (science, wisdom, etc.) is superior to the
excellence of the mind/body unit or moral virtue. Knowledge of
the universe is superior to knowledge of one's role in the city.
Knowledge for the sake of practical or moral or productive action
is inferior to theoretical knowledge. The problem of justice is
a human or city problem, not a "universal" structure. Plato sees
the cosmos as a large city, governed by a providential ruler,
in the light of geometrical principle. Aristotle sees that the
affairs of nature and human affairs are different in kind. Natural
beings pursue their own ends out of a love for perfection (ultimately
belonging to God). Motion is for the sake of rest; change is for
the sake of unchanging form. Detached contemplation is better
than political engagement.
27. Thus, in human beings we have the tension between the
desirability of self-sufficient contemplation (the desire for
knowledge - a private look at the entire universe) and interdependent
social, moral, political life (the natural desire for company).
In Aristotle we have a definite tension between private and public;
individual and social; soul (and its "upward" tendency) and body
(and its physical involvement - horizontally with others). The
mind has both theoretical and practical tendencies. As theoretical,
the mind tends upward (vertically) to be like God. As practical,
the mind tends outward with the body (horizontally) toward social
communion and friendship. According to Aristotle, the only one
who would not need friends or city would be a beast (sub-human)
or a god (superhuman). Human beings are rational animals, in whom
part of reason (theoretical) soars above and beyond the city,
part of reason (practical) regulates activity within the city,
i.e. administers bodily affairs. Contemplation is superior to
practical activity, but practical activity brings about the personal
and social order without which contemplation would be impossible.
Question: Aristotle denies the existence of "ideal
forms" outside of the universe, yet he seems to divorce philosophy
from politics. Explain how Plato is both more "otherwordly" and
"this-worldly" than Aristotle.
Question: Do modern philosophers and scientists more
closely resemble Plato or Aristotle? Explain.
28. Final Fragments on God: God is actuality without potentiality,
permanence without change. This is not as a state of rest or sleep,
but a state of continuous "activity." And what is the only real
self-sufficient activity? Obviously, God does not act as a producer,
for he would then require something outside of himself. How can
the perfectly self-sufficient one lack anything? God has no practical
affairs for that would make him depend on something outside of himself.
God is eternally self-sufficient thought thinking about thought,
contemplation contemplating the act of contemplation. He has no
foreign affairs, he has no political involvements. He is a hermit,
an anchorite. He "moves" the cosmos by inspiring desire for his
perfect actuality and activity. All natural things imitate consciously
or unconsciously this perfect activity as far as the possibility
of their species permits. All things do as much as they can in imitation
of that which acts perfectly throughout all time. God is the eternal
model, the living example of perfect activity, which all things,
more or less active, imitate. He does not depend on any external
goods. He is himself the perfect good. The natural world is a hierarchy
of things which depend less and less on things outside of themselves.
Human beings, because they too can engage in self-sufficient contemplation
(at least in rare moments), share in the "joy" of divine self-sufficient
thinking. Insofar as a man can withdraw from the hustle and bustle
of public affairs and retire to self-sufficient contemplation, an
activity which needs nothing besides itself (is even distracted
and annoyed by things outside itself), he can for a moment know
what it is like to be God. The only peace, the only true independence
we can find is in our thoughts. All other activities need something
else, are in some way dependent.
Question: What has happened to the Socratic distance
between God and human beings?
29. What then is the place of human being in the Aristotelian
universe? Human beings are composites of body and soul. The soul
is the life (form) of the body. With human beings, as with all living
beings, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The soul
is life. Human souls, like animal souls, have desires for nourishment,
perception, etc. But unlike animal souls, human souls possess reason.
The use of reason frees humans from their immediate environment.
As bodies, human beings are within an environment, are part of it.
As minds, human beings can comprehend (surround) their environment.
In fact, the mind can even comprehend or surround the universe (conceptually)
by understanding it (scientific knowledge). But this comprehension
is intellectual detachment. The more of the forest we see, the smaller
each tree becomes. For Aristotle, detachment (contemplation) is
enjoyable in itself. It is not for a re-attachment. Remember that
for Plato detachment from the city (contemplation of the good "above
ground") led to a re-attachment (returning to the cave to help others).
For Aristotle, the knowledge enjoyed in detachment is not necessarily
applicable to moral or political life. Knowledge of the natural
universe is not necessarily relevant to ethics. For Plato, even
the knowledge of the natural universe reveals greater insight into
geometric order or structure, which is, Plato claims, relevant to
ordering personal and social life. For Plato, a cosmic view does
not escape the polis, only attends to a bigger polis (the universe).
Detachment (or ascent from the cave) is for the sake of a greater
responsibility for fellow citizens (in the cave). Thus, we can contrast
the attachment/detachment/re-attachment structure of the ethical
with the attachment/detachment structure of "knowledge for its own
sake." Aristotle carries over Plato's ethical view, but makes it
subordinate to scientific contemplation. The ethical or practical,
very important for Aristotle, is nevertheless subservient to the
intellectual and scientific.
Question: In a sense, Aristotle's God is intellectual
detachment carried out to an extreme. Describe the dangers and
the attractions of intellectual detachment.
Question for Discussion:
1. Discuss how the non-political pursuit of scientific knowledge
has led to great technological advances as well as a divorce between
scientific and ethical or practical concerns. Why are those who
develop new technologies often unable or unwilling to ask ethical
questions or foresee ethical consequences? Why do ordinary citizens
protest possibly dangerous new technologies (such as recombinant
DNA) which they are not able to understand? Give further examples
of this scientific/ethical divorce.
Direct inquiries and comments to:
Copyright © 1996 Gordon
This page last updated 10/14/12
Please note: These philosophical
commentaries, though still in process, are the intellectual property
of Gordon L. Ziniewicz. They may be downloaded and freely distributed
in electronic form only, provided no alterations are made to the
original text. One print copy may be made for personal use, but
further reproduction and distribution of printed copies are prohibited
without the permission of the author.