1 - What is Aristotle’s main innovation/ contribution
to the classification of organisms? That is, what did he do differently than
any predecessors? Why does Aristotle’s or Pliny’s natural histories include
things like “wonder people” and dragons? What is the explanation for their
having been recognized equally with various kinds of fish, deer, or other
well-known animals?
Declared
as the first zoologist recorded, Aristotle attempted to stigmatically organize
the natural world. Beginning with the declaration of blooded animals and
non-blooded animals. In part, this organization combines plant and animals into
a subdivision of non-blooded animals called “plant animals.” However, this idea sees ridiculous to contemporary
readers as dose the blood and sans blood world. The concept of organizing the natural world through
observation was indeed Aristotle’s contribution to natural history.
No
natter how ill-informed Aristotle or Pliny sounds there is a certain level of relatability
to their distinctions and assertions. One has to wonder of the poetry that some
animals were described. In addressing Pliny’s work, Willy Ley, mentions that
most of Pliny’s writings were based on hearsay, As well with Aristotle. These men may have not seen the large
serpents called dragons or other exotic animals. Yet, in vivid detail been
described to Aristotle and Pliny. Although apparently Aristotle did present a
fair amount of direct observation in his work, animal information was compiled
and many descriptions uncited. The two men in some case presented an encyclopedic
tendency. The equilibrium in witch deer stood up to dragons is the product of
are present interpretation, intent of authors and organization of information
in both Aristotle’s and Pliny’s texts.
2 - Why was there a new urgency to classify the
diversity of life in the 1700’s (Linnaeus’ time) than there was for ancient
Greeks like Aristotle and Pliny? What fundamentally had changed in Europe by
the time Linnaeus was observing the variety of living things. Why was Linnaeus
called the “Little Oracle”?
In the
1700s there was grate serge of exploration from Europe to the Americas. In
quest for riches and land emerged an enormous array of flora and fauna never before
seen to Europeans. Many different naturalist
and zoologist were naming were naming the same animals of the Americas
simultaneously, producing confusion on what animal they were specifically addressing.
Before Linnaeus there was no scale or larger system in witch the global natural
world was accurately ordered. Previously Aristotle had presented a formula of minimal
categorization. And due to Aristotle’s circumstance, was not widely
exposed to extensive natural diversity or travel, in witch to see
diversity. It is the circumstance
of the time that Linnaeus was able to comprehend the system of Linnaean
hierarchy thus, the little oracle.
3 - Which definitions of “natural history” from the Natural Histories Project were
most interesting to you and why? How do any of them speak to you personally?
Relate interstingly to each other? Relate to zoos and the notions of natural
history that came up in this week’s readings?
The
first definition that I found relatable is Gary Paul Nabhan segment addressing
pack rat behavior. “ We gather things up and don’t quite know wear that little piece
of evidence will fit latter on.” Often collection is based on attraction or esthetic.
I find myself being drawn to objects or ideas with out knowing the larger narrative
of how they all fit together. For myself it is very much a lady in waiting process.
You tend to your queen, your larger narrative, in hope that you will achieve
the position of queen… grasping the connections of the elements of your interests.
4 – Pick out one quote from Annie Dillard’s essay on Seeing that stood out to you and
discuss it further. What is significant about it and why? If it connects to any
of the other readings or the Observation 1 exercise to you, mention how.
“ I reel with confusion, I don’t understand what I see. With the
naked eye I can see two million light-years to the Andromeda galaxy”
A light year is a concept. One cannot
actually see a light year one has to experience a light year to see it. We do
not know what a light-year looks like we simply know it exist. It is the stars that stabilize this quantifiable
amount of space exist. In this little quote I feel Dillard presents a way of seeing
that is unique to the wonder and confusion and mystery of theory it self. I
feel this quote is relevant to Clifford duke and peter dun Widdie’s definition
of natural history addressing magic and the unknown. The definition touches on the question of “why” and “how”
relating strongly to Dullards’’ emotions toward the concept of the light-year.
No comments:
Post a Comment