Teleology Then and Now: The Question of Kant's Relevance for Contemporary Controversies over Function in Biology (2006)
Zammito, John H. (Author)
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Volume: 37
Pages: 748--770
Edition Details: Part of special issue: “Kantian Teleology and the Biological Sciences”
Language: English
`Naturalism' is the aspiration of contemporary philosophy of biology, and Kant simply cannot be refashioned into a naturalist. Instead, epistemological `deflation' was the decisive feature of Kant's treatment of the `biomedical' science in his day, so it is not surprising that this might attract some philosophers of science to him today. A certain sense of impasse in the contemporary `function talk' seems to motivate renewed interest in Kant. Kant---drawing on his eighteenth-century predecessors---provided a discerning and powerful characterization of what biologists had to explain in organic form. His difference from the rest is that he opined that it was impossible to explain it. Its `inscrutability' was intrinsic. The third Critique essentially proposed the reduction of biology to a kind of pre-scientific descriptivism, doomed never to attain authentic scientificity, to have its `Newton of the blade of grass'. By contrast, for Locke, and a fortiori for Buffon and his followers, `intrinsic purposiveness' was a fact of the matter about concrete biological phenomena; the features of internal self-regulation were hypotheses arising out of actual research practice. The difference comes most vividly to light once we recognize Kant's distinction of the concept of organism from the concept of life. If biology must conceptualize self-organization as actual in the world, Kant's regulative/constitutive distinction is pointless in practice and the (naturalist) philosophy of biology has urgent work to undertake for which Kant turns out not to be very helpful.
...MoreArticle Steigerwald, Joan (2006) Introduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (p. 621).
Similar Citations
Article
Aaron Wells;
(2020)
Kant, Linnaeus, and the economy of nature
Article
Steigerwald, Joan;
(2006)
Introduction
Book
Ina Goy;
(2014)
Kant's Theory of Biology
Article
Berg, Hein van den;
(2013)
The Wolffian Roots of Kant's Teleology
Article
Kreines, James;
(2005)
The Inexplicability of Kant's Naturzweck: Kant on Teleology, Explanation and Biology
Article
Steigerwald, Joan;
(2006)
Kant's Concept of Natural Purpose and the Reflecting Power of Judgment
Article
Ratcliffe, Matthew;
(2000)
The Function of Function
Essay Review
Lewens, Tim;
(2001)
No End to Function Talk in Biology
Article
Philippe Huneman;
(2019)
Revisiting Darwinian teleology: A case for inclusive fitness as design explanation
Article
Sandy C. Boucher;
(2021)
Biological Teleology, Reductionism, and Verbal Disputes
Article
Maund, Barry;
(2000)
Proper Functions and Aristotelian Functions in Biology
Article
Lipton, Peter;
(2000)
Introduction: The Pull of Teleology
Thesis
Heis, Jeremy;
(2007)
The Fact of Modern Mathematics: Geometry, Logic, and Concept Formation in Kant and Cassirer
Article
Quarfood, Marcel;
(2006)
Kant on Biological Teleology: Towards a Two-Level Interpretation
Article
Walsh, D. M.;
(2006)
Organisms as Natural Purposes: The Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective
Article
Zammito, John H.;
(2012)
The Lenoir Thesis Revisited: Blumenbach and Kant
Article
Richards, Robert J.;
(2000)
Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A Historical Misunderstanding
Chapter
Look, Brandon C.;
(2006)
Blumenbach and Kant on Mechanism and Teleology in Nature: The Case of the Formative Drive
Article
Karina Alleva;
José Díez;
Lucia Federico;
(2017)
Models, theory structure and mechanisms in biochemistry: The case of allosterism
Book
McLaughlin, Peter;
(2001)
What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems
Be the first to comment!