KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

Introduction 129
contradiction in the concept of natural purpose must be based on a
(false) presupposition not excluded by the Critique of Pure Reason.
In the four-part antinomy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the
contradiction between thesis and antithesis exposed the unjustified
presupposition that the world is a thing in itself and provided an
indirect proof that it is merely an appearance. In the Dialectic of
teleological judgment Kant construes a contradiction between two
assertions of reflective judgment in order to expose as false an
unjustified presupposition of empirical science. This presupposition
is the basis of the reservations about the concept of natural purpose
and only becomes clearly visible when the problem is brought to a
head and formulated as an explicit contradiction. We shall see that
this presupposition is precisely the one we came across in the analysis
of the antinomy of division: the assumption that the parts are the
condition of the whole, but that the whole is not the condition of the
parts. In the Dialectic this equation of causal explanation as such
with the reduction of a whole to the properties of the parts, that is,
the equation of scientific analysis of a phenomenon with its dissection
into component parts will be called "mechanism" by Kant. It is
the hypostasis of this mechanistically conceived causality as the
only kind of efficient ("real") causality that occasions the
appearance of a contradiction in the concept of natural purpose. The
resolution of the antinomy leads to a relativization not of causality
itself, but of mechanism or reductionism – without however
seriously calling into question its status as the only legitimate form
of scientific explanation in general.
The text of the Dialectic consists of ten two-to-five page numbered
sections (§§69-78). A fairly dependable survey of the course of
Kant's argument can be given by listing the section-headings. At
least it will prove to be one of the peculiarities of the interpretation
developed here, that it interprets Kant to be arguing in each section
more or less just what he announces in its title. The headings read:
§69 What an antinomy of judgment is.
§70 Presentation of that antinomy.
§71 Preliminary to the solution of the above antinomy.
§72 On the various systems concerning the purposiveness of
nature
§73 None of the above systems accomplishes what it alleges to
accomplish.