Preface xvii 



Dc Anima I recall that I was disturbed by the rather cavalier 

 fashion in which we disposed of those portions of the work 

 which treat of reproduction, nutrition and growth, and espe- 

 cially the portions dealing with the senses. At the stage 

 of scientific development I was then in, I knew little or notli- 

 ing of Aristotle's biological writings, and Howison referred 

 to them only in the most cursory way, if indeed he men- 

 tioned them at all. Certain it is he did nothing to arouse 

 my interest in them, or to indicate that he regarded them 

 as specially significant in connection with such important 

 views of Aristotle's as those on the relation of Body and 

 Soul. The question which now seems to me indispensable 

 for grasping the essense of the Aristotelian psychology and 

 philosophy that, namely, of why Aristotle was so greatly in- 

 terested in zoology, and devoted so much time to its study, 

 never came up during the course, I am quite sure. In sci- 

 ence and philosophy as in everything else, the character of 

 one's interests is a surer index to his general views and atti- 

 tude than is anything he can express verbally. There may 

 be ambiguity and error in Aristotle's theory of "synthetic 

 Entelechy." This theory may, probably does, "beset," as 

 Howison remarks, "all individual existence both behind and 

 before," thereby implying some theoretical derogation from 

 the real nature of personality. But over against this error 

 and ambiguity stands indubitable proof of Aristotle's prac- 

 tical faith in the Particular, the Individual, that proof be- 

 ing the vast labor he expended in learning and interpreting 

 the life of the animal world. The chief philosophic signifi- 

 cance of Aristotle's zoological works is not in any informa- 

 tion or theories they contain but in the fact that he pro- 

 duced them at all, since, as mentioned above, zoology is pre- 

 eminent as the science of particulars, and his doctrine of 

 Particulars as opposed to Universals was very close to the 

 heart of his whole philosophic system. 



This prepares for my final remark about the influence upon 



