English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is now a widespread opinion among interpreters that Aristotle’s  History of Animals  is not a mere collection of empirical data but has its own theoretical framework; however, there is still disagreement as to exactly  what  this framework is. To address the problem, the article analyzes in detail the diairetic schemes of  HA  I 1, attempting to overturn the common opinion that this chapter is a mere expository introduction to the study of animals’ differences. On the contrary, it will be shown that in this chapter Aristotle not only applies the method of ‘multiple division’ theorized in  Parts of Animals  I 2–4, but also uses dividing criteria that are informed by his causal theory and his hylomorphist ontology. This analysis will therefore lead to the more controversial conclusion that  HA  is not an ‘early’ work by Aristotle but a  mature  treatise with its own specific theoretical aim: the aitiological explanation of the anatomical, eco-physiological and ethological differences among animals.

Per una spiegazione causale delle differenze tra gli animali: Aristotele, Historia animalium I 1