Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 205–230 | Cite as

Leibnizian organisms, nested individuals, and units of selection

  • Ohad Nachtomy
  • Ayelet Shavit
  • Justin Smith


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 unit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aristotle, Historia Animalium (The History of Animals). In: McKeon, R. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Random House, New-York (1941).Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle, Categoriae (Categories). In: McKeon, R. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Random House, New-York (1941).Google Scholar
  3. Avital, E., Jablonka, E. (2000) Animal Traditions, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Brandon, R. (1999) The units of selection revisited: the modules of selection. Biol. Philos. 14: 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandon, R. N. (1990) Adaptation and Environment. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, L. W. (1987) The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Dawkins, R. (1982) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Diderot, D. Elements de Physiologie. Repr. J. Mayer. Didier (1964), Paris.Google Scholar
  10. Duchesneau, F. (1998) Les Modèles du Vivant de Descartes à Leibniz. Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. El-Hani, C. N., Emmeche, C. (2000) On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 234–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk, R. (1988) Species as Individuals. Biol. Philos. 3: 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falk, R. (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Falk, R. (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Griesemer, J. R. (1999) Materials for the study of evolutionary transition. Biol. and Philos. 14: 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griesemer, J. R. (2000 a) The units of evolutionary transition. Selection 1: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griesemer, J. R. (2000 b) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Philos. Sci. 67: s 348-s 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1994 a) Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J. Philos. 91: 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1994 b) Replicators and vehicles? or developmental systems?. Behav. Brain. Sci. 17: 622–623.Google Scholar
  21. Griffiths, P., Gray, R. (1997) Replicator II - judgment day. Biol. Philos. 12: 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gutmann, H., Neumann-Held, E. M. (2000) The theory of organism and the culturalist foundation of biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 276–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull, D. (1980) Individuality and selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ishiguro, H. (1998) Unity without simplicity. Monist 81: 534–552.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Jablonka, E. (1994) Inheritance systems and the evolution of new levels of individuality. J. Theo. Biol. 170: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jablonka, E., Lamb, M. J. (1995) Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Leibniz, G. W. In: Ariew, R., Garber, D. (eds) G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays, Hackett, Indianapolis. (1989).Google Scholar
  29. Leibniz, G. W. In: Gerhardt, C. I. (ed) Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz. Berlin. (1849–1860).Google Scholar
  30. Leibniz, G. W. In: Gerhardt, C. I. (ed) Mathematische Schriften. Schmidt, Halle. (1849–1863).Google Scholar
  31. Leibniz, G. W. In: Leibniz: Werke. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (1959–1992).Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Leibniz, G. W. In: Loemker, L. E. (ed. and tr). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Reidel, Dordrecht. (1969).Google Scholar
  34. Leibniz, G. W. In: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed) Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Darmstadt and Leipzig. (1923-present)Google Scholar
  35. Lewontin, R. C. (1970) The unit of selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lloyd, E. A. (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. (sec. ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Maynard Smith, J., Szathmáry, E. (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. W. H. Freeman, Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Michod, R. E. (1999) Darwinian Dynamics - Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  43. Okasha, S. (2001) Why won’t the group selection controversy go away? Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 52: 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oyama, S. (1985) The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Oyama, S. (2000) Evolution’s Eye. Duke Univ. Press, Durham and London.Google Scholar
  46. Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Etxeberria, A., Moreno A., Ibañez J. (2000) Organisms and their place in biology. Theory Biosci. 119: 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sleigh, R. C. (1990) Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on their Correspondence. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Sober, E., Wilson, D. S. (1998) Unto Others. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  52. Sober, E., Lewontin, R. (1982) Artifact, cause and genic selection. Philos. Sci. 49: 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sterelny, K., Kitcher, P. (1988) The Return of the Gene. J. Philos. 85: 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sterelny, K., Smith, K., Dickison, M. (1996) The Extended Replicator. Biol. Philos. 11: 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Tralles, A. von. In: Puschmann, T. (ed) Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medicin, Vienna. (1878–1879).Google Scholar
  57. Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, New-Jersey.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, D. S. (1983) The group selection controversy: history and current status. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14: 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, D. S., Sober, E. (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain. Sci. 17: 585–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson, J. (1999) Biological Individuality. Cambridge Univ. Press, USA.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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

Copyright information

© Urban & Fischer Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ohad Nachtomy
    • 1
  • Ayelet Shavit
    • 2
  • Justin Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Tel-Hai Academic College and Bar Ilan UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Tel-Hai Academic College and The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations