74 BIOCOSMOLOGY – NEO-ARISTOTELISM Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter 2018 ARISTOTLE’s AND HANS DRIESCH’s SUBSTANTIAL FORM (μορφή) AND ENTELECHY (ἐντελέχεια) AS BASIC CATEGORIES INTEGRATING ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT Dariusz A. SZKUTNIK 1 ABSTRACT. The main subject of methodological analyses presented in this article will be the compilation and comparison of two concepts referring to the phenomenon of integration in the area of morphogenesis. Both conceptual categories (the substantial form and entelecheia) were introduced to philosophy by Aristotle in antiquity. Entelecheia itself, as a systemic category, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, obtained an “other” meaning, which were given to it by Hans Driesch. Driesch has made it a dynamic factor integrating developmental processes, which can be treated in the same way as the substantial form (morphe) advocated by Aristotle. In such a comparison of both these two categories, one should remember to maintain a certain “methodological distance” when describing and comparing the structural components of the Aristotle and Hans Driesch systems. Author expects that his research approach could contribute to shedding light on studying the intertwining themes of Aristotle’s Biocosmology and Hans Driesch’s philosophy of organic world. KEYWORDS: Aristotle, Hans Driesch, entelecheia, substantial form, matter, potential, energy, morphogenesis Contents Introduction 1. Aristotle and Hans Driesch. Two ways of “organizing” the matter 2. Integration factor in actu. Inclusion of Aristotle and Hans Driesch 3. From the entelecheia category to the concept of substantial form. About the Conceptual Paradox of Hans Driesch 4. General comparison of the (selected) basic concepts used by Aristotle and Hans Driesch in the interpretation of dynamic, goal-oriented processes in the morphogenesis. Matter, potency and energy Conclusion 1 Independent researcher, Lublin, POLAND.