KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

106 Antinomy of Division
B552-53) gives adequate occasion for confusion. Some examples may
be given here (emphasis PM):
A1) For this matter is given as a whole, and therefore with all its possible
parts, in empirical intuition ... the further members of any continued division
are themselves empirically given prior to the continuation of the
division.. (B541)
A2) there are always more members, empirically given, than I reach
through the regress of decomposition; (B*542)
A3) For the conditions (the parts) are themselves contained in the conditioned,
and since this is given complete in an intuition that is enclosed
between limits, the parts are one and all given together with the conditioned.
(B551-2)
B1) In neither case, whether the regress be in infinitum of in indefinitum,
may the series of conditions be regarded as being given as infinite in the
object. (B542)
B2) [A body] is therefore infinitely divisible, without consisting, however,
of infinitely many parts. (B553)
B3) only the divisibility, i.e. an in itself absolutely indeterminate number
[Menge] of parts is given — the parts themselves being given and determined
only through the subdivision; in short, the whole is not in itself
already divided. (B*554)
B4) For these [the phenomena] are mere representations; and the parts
exist merely in their representation, consequently in the division (i.e., in a
possible experience where they are given) and the division reaches only as
far as such experience reaches. (Prolegomena, §52c, 83; A149)
B5) For the parts insofar as they belong to the existence of an appearance
exist only in thought, namely in the division itself. (Metaphysical Foundations,
54; A50)
Although it is correct that the B-opinion is expressed more
often than the A-opinion, nonetheless we are dealing here not with
an opinion poll but with expressions of one and the same person to a
large extent within the course of ten pages. There are even more
such remarks, which are simply too long to be quoted conveniently.
However it is possible to interpret Kant in such a way that he is not
engaged in wild fluctuations between contradictory positions and
also without simply certifying a qualified majority of votes for the
B-opinion.
It is quite clear on the basis of the resolution section of the
antinomies chapter as well as from Kant's later writings, that he
holds that not all the parts or the conditions are necessarily given as
discrete entities before the regressive synthesis of division. It is also
clear that the division itself cannot be the condition of the parts, i.e.,
that division is not a real ground (Realgrund) but only a cognitive