Summary
Leibniz developed a new notion of individuality, according to which individuals are nested one within another, thereby abandoning the Aristotelian formula at the heart of substantialist metaphysics, ‘one body, one substance’. On this model, the level of individuality is determined by the degree of activity, and partly defined by its relations with other individuals. In this article, we show the importance of this new notion of individuality for some persisting questions in theoretical biology. Many evolutionary theorists presuppose a model of individuality that will eventually reduce to spatiotemporal mechanisms, and some still look for an exclusive level or function to determine a unit of selection. In recent years, a number of alternatives to these exclusive approaches have emereged, and no consensus can be foreseen. It is for this reason that we propose the model of nested individuals. This model supports pluralistic multi-level selection and rejects an exclusive level or function for a unit of selection. Since activity is essential to the unity of an individual, this model focuses on integrating processes of interaction and replication instead of choosing between them. In addition, the model of nested individuals may also be seen as a distinct perspective among the various alternative models for the unit of selection. This model stresses activity and pluralism: it accepts simultaneuous co-existence of individuals at different levels, nested one within the other. Our aim in this article is to show now a chapter of the history of metaphysics may be fruitfully brought to bear on the current debate over the unit of selection in evolutionary biology.
Key words
Leibniz individuality nestedness selection unitPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Aristotle, Historia Animalium (The History of Animals). In: McKeon, R. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Random House, New-York (1941).Google Scholar
- Aristotle, Categoriae (Categories). In: McKeon, R. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Random House, New-York (1941).Google Scholar
- Avital, E., Jablonka, E. (2000) Animal Traditions, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Brandon, R. (1999) The units of selection revisited: the modules of selection. Biol. Philos. 14: 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brandon, R. N. (1990) Adaptation and Environment. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Buss, L. W. (1987) The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (1982) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Diderot, D. Elements de Physiologie. Repr. J. Mayer. Didier (1964), Paris.Google Scholar
- Duchesneau, F. (1998) Les Modèles du Vivant de Descartes à Leibniz. Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
- El-Hani, C. N., Emmeche, C. (2000) On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 234–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Falk, R. (1988) Species as Individuals. Biol. Philos. 3: 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Falk, R. (2000)Google Scholar
- Falk, R. (2001)Google Scholar
- Gould, S. J., Lloyd, E. A. (2000) Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 96: 11904–11909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griesemer, J. R. (1999) Materials for the study of evolutionary transition. Biol. and Philos. 14: 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griesemer, J. R. (2000 a) The units of evolutionary transition. Selection 1: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griesemer, J. R. (2000 b) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Philos. Sci. 67: s 348-s 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1994 a) Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J. Philos. 91: 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1994 b) Replicators and vehicles? or developmental systems?. Behav. Brain. Sci. 17: 622–623.Google Scholar
- Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1997) Replicator II - judgment day. Biol. Philos. 12: 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gutmann, H., Neumann-Held, E. M. (2000) The theory of organism and the culturalist foundation of biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 276–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hull, D. (1980) Individuality and selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ishiguro, H. (1998) Unity without simplicity. Monist 81: 534–552.Google Scholar
- Ishiguro, H. (2001) Is there a conflict between the logical and metaphysical notion of unity in Leibniz? The Proceedings of the VII International Leibniz Congress, Berlin. pp. 535–542.Google Scholar
- Jablonka, E. (1994) Inheritance systems and the evolution of new levels of individuality. J. Theo. Biol. 170: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jablonka, E., Lamb, M. J. (1995) Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Ariew, R., Garber, D. (eds) G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays, Hackett, Indianapolis. (1989).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Gerhardt, C. I. (ed) Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz. Berlin. (1849–1860).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Gerhardt, C. I. (ed) Mathematische Schriften. Schmidt, Halle. (1849–1863).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Leibniz: Werke. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (1959–1992).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Essais de theodicée: sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme, et l’origine du mal. Garnier-Flammarion, Paris. (1969).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Loemker, L. E. (ed. and tr). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Reidel, Dordrecht. (1969).Google Scholar
- Leibniz, G. W. In: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed) Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Darmstadt and Leipzig. (1923-present)Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C. (1970) The unit of selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lloyd, E. A. (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. (sec. ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).Google Scholar
- Lloyd, E. A. (1992): Unit of selection. In: Keller, E. F., Lloyd, E. A. (eds) Keywords In Evolutionary Biology. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 334–340.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J. (1987 a) How to model evolution. In: Dupré, J. (ed) The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 119–131.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J. (1987 b) Reply to Sober. In: Dupré, J. (ed) The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 147–149.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J., Szathmáry, E. (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. W. H. Freeman, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Michod, R. E. (1983) Population biology of the first replicators: on the origin of the genotype, phenotype and organism. Am. Zool. 23: 5–14.Google Scholar
- Michod, R. E. (1999) Darwinian Dynamics - Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Okasha, S. (2001) Why won’t the group selection controversy go away? Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 52: 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oyama, S. (1985) The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Oyama, S. (2000) Evolution’s Eye. Duke Univ. Press, Durham and London.Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Etxeberria, A., Moreno A., Ibañez J. (2000) Organisms and their place in biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sleigh, R. C. (1990) Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on their Correspondence. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1987 a) What Is adaptationism? In Dupré, J. (ed) The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 105–118.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1987 b) Comments on Maynard Smith’s ‘How to model evolution’. In Dupré, J. (ed) The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
- Sober, E., Wilson, D. S. (1994) A critical review of philosopical work on the units of selection problem. Philos. Sci. 61: 534–555.Google Scholar
- Sober, E., Wilson, D. S. (1998) Unto Others. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Sober, E., Lewontin, R. (1982) Artifact, cause and genic selection. Philos. Sci. 49: 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sterelny, K., Kitcher, P. (1988) The Return of the Gene. J. Philos. 85: 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sterelny, K., Smith, K., Dickison, M. (1996) The Extended Replicator. Biol. Philos. 11: 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Szathmáry, E., Maynard Smith, J. (1997) From replicators to reproducers: the first major transitions leading to life. J. Theo. Biol. 187: 555–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tralles, A. von. In: Puschmann, T. (ed) Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medicin, Vienna. (1878–1879).Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, New-Jersey.Google Scholar
- Wilson, D. S. (1983) The group selection controversy: history and current status. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14: 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, D. S., Sober, E. (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain. Sci. 17: 585–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, J. (1999) Biological Individuality. Cambridge Univ. Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Wimsatt, W. C. (1980) Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In Nickles, T. (ed) Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. vol. II, Reidel, Dordrecht. pp. 213–259.Google Scholar
- Wimsatt, W. C. (1981) Units of selection and the structure of the multi-level genome. In Asquith, P., Giere, R. (eds) Proc. Philos. Sci. Assoc vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing. pp. 122–183.Google Scholar