IsisCB Explore

Thesis ID: CBB401142573

The Epistemic Foundations of German Biology, 1790-1802 (2017)

Feigenbaum, Ryan William (Author)
Brogan, Walter (Advisor)
Nassar, Dalia (Advisor)

Villanova University
Brogan, Walter
Nassar, Dalia

URI: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1957417873?accountid=12964

Publication Date: 2017
Physical Details: 336 pp.
Language: English

Outside Links

Academia.edu

Natural philosophy Organisms Biology 19th century 18th century Germany Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich Kant, Immanuel

While Immanuel Kant famously denied the possibility of biology in the Critique of Judgment (1790), twelve years later Gottfried Treviranus not only asserted its possibility, but also demonstrated its very practice in his Biology (1802). What transpired in the 1790s to make biology possible as a science? This dissertation takes up this question, offering, in response, a new interpretation of the epistemic foundations of German biology. We begin with a reassessment of the contributions to life science made by Johann Blumenbach, who diverged from foregoing mechanical approaches to life by introducing his theory of the formative drive. The theory spread quickly across and beyond Germany, counting Kant among its acolytes. Under its influence, Kant formulated, for the first time, the concept of the organism, which served as a touchstone for any thinker concerned with organic nature in the 1790s. We analyze this concept’s reception by three key figures: Carl Kielmeyer, Johann Reil, and Friedrich Schelling. The ostensible diversity of these thinkers belies their common attempt to establish laws of the organic world. To advance such laws, Kielmeyer applied the organism concept beyond the individual plant or animal, extending it to entire populations, kingdoms, and nature itself. Because of the concept’s predominance, even those opposed to it, like Reil, had to posit it as a starting-point, substantially revising it in the process. Schelling developed the most precise formulation of the organism’s logic, which reappeared, again with alterations, in Treviranus’s Biology. We find, in conclusion, that Kant and Treviranus were not as opposed as they first seemed to be, since their respective declarations were made for the same reason: they recognized the existence of a domain of nature that had eluded preceding methodologies of philosophy, science, and theology. To begin even to argue whether we could have knowledge of an organism, first we must recognize that it exists. Kant, Treviranus, and the others mentioned here effectively demarcate this biological domain, laying the foundation for what would become the modern discipline of biology. They brought to life, for the first time, the organism.

...More

Citation URI

https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB401142573/

Citations Indexes

Similar Citations

Article Zammito, John H.; (2012)
The Lenoir Thesis Revisited: Blumenbach and Kant (/isis/citation/CBB001221595/)

Article Patrick R. Leland; (2020)
Kant, organisms, and representation (/isis/citation/CBB900285348/)

Article Anton Kabeshkin; (2017)
Schelling on Understanding Organisms (/isis/citation/CBB510688540/)

Article Zammito, John H.; (2003)
“This Inscrutable Principle of an Original Organization”: Epigenesis and “Looseness of Fit” in Kant's Philosophy of Science (/isis/citation/CBB000340872/)

Chapter Look, Brandon C.; (2006)
Blumenbach and Kant on Mechanism and Teleology in Nature: The Case of the Formative Drive (/isis/citation/CBB000771984/)

Article Steigerwald, Joan; (2002)
Instruments of Judgment: Inscribing Organic Processes in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany (/isis/citation/CBB000201183/)

Article Richards, Robert J.; (2000)
Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A Historical Misunderstanding (/isis/citation/CBB000770643/)

Article Lenoir, Timothy; (1980)
Kant, Blumenbach, and vital materialism in German biology (/isis/citation/CBB000001323/)

Book (1994)
Philosophie des Organischen in der Goethezeit: Studien zu Werk und Wirkung des Naturforschers Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer (1765-1844) (/isis/citation/CBB000030262/)

Thesis Goldstein, Amanda Jo; (2011)
“Sweet Science”: Romantic Materialism and the New Sciences of Life (/isis/citation/CBB001567306/)

Article Michelini, Francesca; (2012)
Hegel's Notion of Natural Purpose (/isis/citation/CBB001221596/)

Article Berg, Hein van den; (2013)
The Wolffian Roots of Kant's Teleology (/isis/citation/CBB001320551/)

Chapter Theis, Robert; (2010)
La physico-théologie du jeune Kant (/isis/citation/CBB001023227/)

Article Nassar, Dalia; (2014)
Pure versus Empirical Forms of Thought: Schelling's Critique of Kant's Categories and the Beginnings of Naturphilosophie (/isis/citation/CBB001201300/)

Book Guyer, Paul; (2006)
The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy (/isis/citation/CBB001035165/)

Article Daniela Helbig; Dalia Nassar; (2016)
The Metaphor of Epigenesis: Kant, Blumenbach and Herder (/isis/citation/CBB685336938/)

Article Jan Baedke; (2019)
O Organism, Where Art Thou? Old and New Challenges for Organism-Centered Biology (/isis/citation/CBB054222289/)

Chapter Joachim Schummer; (2020)
The Operational Definition of the Elements: A Philosophical Reappraisal (/isis/citation/CBB928776970/)

Article Witt, Elke; (2008)
Form---A Matter of Generation: The Relation of Generation, Form, and Function in the Epigenetic Theory of Caspar F. Wolff (/isis/citation/CBB000831765/)

Article Massimi, Michela; Bianchi, Silvia De; (2013)
Cartesian Echoes in Kant's Philosophy of Nature (/isis/citation/CBB001320269/)

Comments

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}