Aristotle's Theory Of Empedocles

For Empedocles, the origin of organisms is an act brought on by chance, which can be defined as a “coincidental cause” (Physics 54). For Empedocles, it is important to note the importance of love and strife and the role these two elements play in the chance process. Before the origin of organisms, love out-ruled strife and there was a continuous harmony in the universe. However, Empedocles suggests that the spirits of the universe had become corrupt and strife’s power began to increase and overrule the power of love. The battle between love and strife is when the origin of organisms began (Waterfield 138). He stated, “…in the midst of mortal thing been made by Aphrodite to resemble and cleave to one another, but if hostile, they draw far apart …show more content…
In Peter Adamson’s, Classical Philosophy, Adamson also proposed that Aristotle had the better argument because, “Empedocles has not spelled out the mechanisms by which random processes could yield uniform and predictable processes” (Adamson 241). As Adamson points out, Aristotle better explains what causes chance by altering the definition and using his four causes to explain chance as an act of nature. According to Empedocles, chance is a random event and once viable organisms are created, those organisms can reproduce. Empedocles believed, for example, that the backbone of an organism was created by random chance and that random event allowed for organisms to be viable. Aristotle, on the other hand, showed that all things had a purpose. In reference to Empedocles’ backbone example, Aristotle believed that the backbone formed out of necessity rather than just by a random event. I propose that because Aristotle shows the necessity for these vital parts, such as the backbone, he is ultimately showing that organisms evolve based on the necessities of that …show more content…
Some scholars do not believe that Aristotle makes a good argument for the origin of organisms and the role of chance because in Aristotle’s Physics, Aristotle argues that the origin of organisms cannot be brought on by chance because chance is not natural. However, in another work by Aristotle, De Anima, Aristotle alludes to the theory of spontaneous generation for the origin of organisms. In De Anima, Aristotle discusses the seemingly spontaneous generation of testacea, or mollusks. In this section of De Anima, Aristotle states that the generation of the testacea is not sexual reproduction, but spontaneous generation (Lennox 224). To many, this account sounds very familiar to Empedocles, implying that chance randomly assorts different parts of organisms together and the viable organisms that are formed can reproduce. How could Aristotle reject chance, or spontaneous generation in one of his works, but use it as an explanation for testacea in another? Therefore, because Aristotle is unclear whether he felt chance played a role in the origin of organisms, his argument is often