Aristotle’s Prejudice toward the Nature of Some Animal Species

Throughout history. people used a multitude of prejudices when describing the nature of a particular animal species, some of which are still at force. Not only that these prejudices do not reflect the true nature of a particular animal species, but humans also give animals human characteristics. In my lecture, I will locate the prejudices that Aristotle attributes to the nature of some animal species in his so-called biological works, which are traditionally divided into three works: History of Animals, On the Parts of the Animals, and On the Gait of Animals. I will also explore how many of these Aristotle’s reflections on animals are present today. For example, Aristotle claims: “Some animals are cunning and evil-disposed, as the fox ; others, as the dog, are fierce, friendly, and fawning. Some are gentle and easily tamed, as the elephant ; some are susceptible of shame, and watchful, as the goose. Some are jealous, and fond of ornament, as the peacock” (AH I, 16). Contemporary prejudice that sheep are foolish can also be read in Aristotle: “The disposition of sheep, as I have said before, is foolish, and without sense” (AH IX, 3). In Aristotle’s view, not only sheep are stupid: “The polypus is a foolish creature, for it will approach a man’s hand if brought near it” (AH XXV, 9). He also claims: “The partridge does not lay less than ten eggs, and often sixteen. As it has been already observed, it is a bird of an evil and cunning disposition” (AH, IX, 2). Are certain animals evil, jealous or foolish? According to Aristotle, yes. And according to us today? Even though we often believe this is not the case, contemporary common sense repeatedly contains a similar approach to the nature of some animal species.