KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

126 Summary
position proves to be not an analytical opposition (contradiction) but
rather a merely dialectical or synthetic opposition (contrary opposition).
Both propositions could be false. Since all proofs for the various
propositions were apagogical, they are thus all invalid; nonetheless
the refutations of the respective counter-propositions,
contained in the proofs, are still valid.
2. In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant reiterates an assumption
that he had introduced as early as the Monadologia physica, namely
that the parts condition the whole, but the whole does not condition
the parts. This assumption leads, if one takes Kant's concepts and
arguments seriously, to an incompatibility between the justifications
of the First and Second Antinomies: either the dissection of a
material system (Second Antinomy) is a regress from a conditioned
to its condition or the composition of a material system in space
(First Antinomy) is such a regress. Only one of them can be a
regress, and without a regress there is no antinomy. The equation of
the relation of part and whole with that of cause and effect is not
problematized at all by Kant. The identity of the two relations seems
to be self-evident.
3. The system of antinomies of reason that Kant presents at the
end of the "Critique of Aesthetic Judgment" is complete and closed
in its structure. There is no place for additional antinomies of reason.
The antinomy of judgment, which is not foreseen there, must
have a different position in the critical system than the antinomies
of reason.