KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

Antinomy of Freedom 111
Thesis
Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from
which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain
these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another
causality, that of freedom. (B472)
Antithesis
There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance
with laws of nature. (B473)
Due to the confusion caused by Kant's "proof" of the thesis, in
which he seems to be talking about an original first cause of all
causal chains, this is one instance where a look at the Leibniz-
Clarke debate can indeed help to clarify the issue. The thesis maintains
that physical causality is not enough to explain empirical phenomena;
this position can be well illustrated by a passage from
Newton's Opticks where he explains why in spite of the apparent
lack of conservation of motion in inelastic impact the world system
does not run down: 69
There is a necessity of conserving and recruiting it [motion] by active principles
such as are the cause of gravity ... and the cause of fermentation ...
For we meet with very little motion in the world, besides what is owing to
these active principles or to the dictates of a will.
We may add to this Samuel Clarke's defense of freedom: 70
Action, is the beginning of a motion where there was none before, from a
principle of life or activity: and if God or man, or any living or active power,
ever influences any thing in the material world; and everything be not mere
absolute mechanism; there must be a continual increase and decrease of the
whole quantity of motion in the universe. Which this learned gentleman
[Leibniz] frequently denies.
Kant had always maintained that this kind of position was absurd.
Like Descartes and Leibniz he took conservation laws for matter and
"force" to be absolutely fundamental for science. His first published
work, for instance, dealt with the question of the measure of the
force that is conserved in the world system (there was never any
question as to whether what is to be called force was conserved).
Furthermore, he even claimed in the Metaphysical Foundations of
Natural Science that he had proved "apodictically" the conservation
69 Latin edition cited by Alexander, "Introduction," xviii (emphasis PM). Cf.
also Locke, Essay, IV, chap. X, §19: "free action of the mind causes motion."
70 Clarke, 5th Letter §§93-95.