KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114 Antinomy of Freedom the Third and Fourth both can be true. 74 The resolution section on the Third Antinomy is thus essentially an argument as to why the reformulated thesis could be true and why the Antithesis without reformulation is or ought to be false . In his "Essay on the Progress of Metaphysics" Kant says about the dynamical antinomies: Thirdly, proposition and counterproposition can also contain less than needed for logical opposition and thus both be true — as in logic two judgments opposed to one another merely by the difference of the subjects (iudicia subcontraria) —, as this in fact is the case with the antinomy of the dynamical principles, if namely the subject of the opposing judgments is taken in a different sense in each. (W 3,628;; Ak 20,291) Accordingly, the subject, "thing," in the thesis and the antithesis is to be taken in a "different sense"; therefore there is no contradiction but only a subcontrary opposition. Kant's analysis of the various kinds of opposition was described earlier in this chapter. According to the square of oppositions, subcontrary oppositions normally have the form, "quidam S est P; quidam S non est P." Kant generalizes the form so that it includes not only statements in which the same predicate is asserted and denied of different subjects, but also those in which the same subject is taken in different senses, or even all pairs of judgments of which both can be true but not both false. Kant presents no deliberations on the subcontrary antinomies comparable to the Zeno-digression on the contrary antinomies. However, as Wolff 75 has pointed out, Kant does present an example in the "Observation" on the Fourth Antinomy that can serve to illustrate the resolution of the subcontrary opposition of cosmological propositions. There, Kant mentions the "controversy between two famous astronomers, which arose from a similar difficulty in regard to the choice of a standpoint": The one had argued that the moon revolves on its own axis, because it always turns the same side towards the earth. The other drew the opposite conclusion that the moon does not revolve on its own axis, because it always turns the same side towards the earth. Both inferences were correct, according to the point of view which each chose in observing the moon's motion. (B489) The two statements emphasized by Kant seem to contradict one another; but the seeming contradiction turns out to be a subcon- 74 Cf. also Prolegomena, §53. 75 Wolff, Der Begriff, pp. 56-7.
Subcontrary Oppositions 115 trary opposition, if one takes into consideration the fact that the subject, the moon, is taken in different senses. The moon's motion must first be put in relation to a reference system. In relation to a particular reference system the moon revolves around its axis, in relation to another system it does not revolve. In a corrected version specifying reference systems both statements can be true. Furthermore, the example also makes another subtle point. The reference systems which Kant introduces are not equivalent in status because he is not dealing with uniform rectilinear motion but rather with rotational motion. The rotation of a body around its own axis is an absolute motion in both Newtonian and Leibnizian physics: in rotation centrifugal forces arise. 76 Kant, too, in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, singles out the "circular motion of a body" as a "real" motion, not merely relative to a particular system of reference. 77 Although there are many different kinematic descriptions of the state of motion of the moon according to the systems of reference chosen, nonetheless there is only one dynamical description in classical mechanics: if centrifugal forces arise, then it "really" rotates; if not, then it does not rotate. The example shows, if one takes it seriously, that even if there is a "real" rotation of the moon (measurable by the centrifugal forces), there can still be a standpoint (e.g. the earth) in relation to which the moon is at rest. Thus we have an example of two statements one of which is really true (or false) and the other of which can be true (or false). It should also be pointed out that the essay discussing the quarrel of the two astronomers, to which Kant is referring here, deals precisely with the problem of the relative or absolute rotational motion of the moon. 78 76 Cf. Freudenthal, Atom, pp. 29f, 68f. 77 Kant, Metaphysical Foundations, Ak 4,557; W 5,125-6. 78 Kant mentions explicitly Jean Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan (B489) and is almost certainly referring to his essay, "Recherches sur l'equilibre de la lune dans son orbite," (1747). The two astronomers discussed there are Newton (represented by Cassini) and Kepler. Newton's position is reported as follows: "Tout corps tout spheroide & pour ne point nous ecarter de notre sujet, tout globe, tel que celui de la Lune, sera dit tourner réelement sur son centre ou sur son axe, si par son mouvement, les parties qui le composent acquérent une veritable force centrifuge sur son centre, ou sur l'axe de revolution qui passe par son centre..." Wolff (Der Begriff p. 61) argues that Kant's example of the rotation of the moon does not fit the Third Antinomy: "In terms of content this solution would only support the comparison, if for example the subcontrary judgements were to read as follows: 'The moon revolves on its axis (independent of any reference to a system
Page 1:
KANT’S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN B
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgments...........
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements vii This book pres
Page 9:
To My Parents M.M.M. and P.O.M.
Page 12 and 13:
2 Introduction fact the rejection o
Page 14 and 15:
4 Introduction almost exclusively c
Page 16 and 17:
6 Introduction reductionism as the
Page 18 and 19:
8 Theory of the Organism will be se
Page 20 and 21:
10 Theory of the Organism when he f
Page 22 and 23:
12 Theory of the Organism that this
Page 24 and 25:
14 Theory of the Organism not in an
Page 26 and 27:
16 Theory of the Organism formation
Page 28 and 29:
18 Theory of the Organism common sp
Page 30 and 31:
20 Theory of the Organism cated to
Page 32 and 33:
22 Theory of the Organism by these
Page 34 and 35:
24 Kant's Reading of Biology of the
Page 36 and 37:
26 Kant's Reading of Biology for in
Page 38 and 39:
28 Kant's Reading of Biology monly
Page 40 and 41:
30 Kant's Reading of Biology not be
Page 42 and 43:
32 Kant's Reading of Biology to ada
Page 44 and 45:
34 Analytic of Teleological Judgmen
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
54 Antinomies of Reason tent is par
Page 66 and 67:
56 Antinomies of Reason antinomies
Page 68 and 69:
58 Antinomies of Reason shows that
Page 70 and 71:
60 Antinomies of Reason categories
Page 72 and 73:
62 Antinomies of Reason "only condi
Page 74 and 75: 64 Antinomies of Reason described;
Page 76 and 77: 66 Kant's Logic For the true opposi
Page 78 and 79: 68 Kant's Logic outside the sphere
Page 80 and 81: 70 Kant's Logic In contrast to Lamb
Page 82 and 83: 72 Kant's Logic predicate under con
Page 84 and 85: 74 Kant's Logic other. We can thus
Page 86 and 87: 76 Kant's Logic then both conflicti
Page 88 and 89: 78 Kant's Logic Both conflicting pr
Page 90 and 91: 80 The Unconditioned and the Infini
Page 108 and 109: 98 Antinomy of Division Antithesis
Page 110 and 111: 100 Antinomy of Division justificat
Page 112 and 113: 102 Antinomy of Division and thus p
Page 114 and 115: 104 Antinomy of Division why it is
Page 116 and 117: 106 Antinomy of Division B552-53) g
Page 118 and 119: 108 Antinomy of Division "machine"
Page 120 and 121: 110 Antinomy of Freedom How far the
Page 122 and 123: 112 Antinomy of Freedom of momentum
Page 126 and 127: 116 Antinomy of Freedom If Kant mea
Page 128 and 129: 118 Antinomy of Freedom phenomena i
Page 130 and 131: 120 Antinomy of Freedom In the Crit
Page 132 and 133: 122 Antinomy of Freedom must appear
Page 134 and 135: 124 Systematics of Antinomy I do no
Page 136 and 137: 126 Summary position proves to be n
Page 138 and 139: 128 Antinomy of Judgment An antinom
Page 140 and 141: 130 Antinomy of Judgment §74 The r
Page 142 and 143: 132 Antinomy of Judgment must have
Page 144 and 145: 134 Antinomy of Judgment dialectic.
Page 146 and 147: 136 Antinomy of Judgment we cannot
Page 148 and 149: 138 Interpretations of the Antinomy
Page 162 and 163: 152 Heuristic but Necessary Princip
Page 172 and 173: 162 Resolution of the Antinomy the
Page 174 and 175:
164 Resolution of the Antinomy know
Page 176 and 177:
166 Resolution of the Antinomy a wh
Page 178 and 179:
168 Resolution of the Antinomy able
Page 180 and 181:
170 Resolution of the Antinomy ous
Page 182 and 183:
172 Resolution of the Antinomy intr
Page 184 and 185:
174 Resolution of the Antinomy tion
Page 186 and 187:
176 Resolution of the Antinomy meth
Page 188 and 189:
178 Resolution of the Antinomy anyt
Page 190:
180 Summary acquainted with" a caus
Page 194 and 195:
184 Bibliography Bommersheim, Paul,
Page 196 and 197:
186 Bibliography Fraisse, Jean Clau
Page 198 and 199:
188 Bibliography Kraemer, Eric Russ
Page 200 and 201:
190 Bibliography & E. Mendelsohn) B
Page 202 and 203:
192 Bibliography Roretz, Karl, "Zur
Page 204 and 205:
194 Bibliography American and Conti
Page 206 and 207:
196 Index 144; 154; 167; 169; final
Page 208 and 209:
198 Index mere understanding 47; 13
show all

KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?