KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

148 Interpretations of the Antinomy
According to Adickes, not only was the Dialectic written for
architectonic reasons, but "the Doctrine of Method, too, was only
elaborated on account of systematics." 17 With this assertion Adickes
has in effect traced back three-fourths of the "Critique of Teleological
Judgment" to systematics. And here the thesis becomes absurd.
Both the Critique of Practical Reason and the "Critique of Aesthetic
Judgment" have an Analytic and a Dialectic with an antinomy, and
one might very well get the impression that the antinomy was just
thrown in for "systematic" reasons. 18 But in both cases the Dialectic
is only about one-tenth as long as the Analytic; it is almost an
afterthought. In the Critique of Practical Reason there is not even a
formal confrontation of a thesis and an antithesis in the presentation
of the antinomy. No matter how one interprets these latter
texts, they do make one thing clear: Systematics does not in any way
demand that the Dialectic be longer than the Analytic — as is the
case in the "Critique of teleological Judgment." At this point the
thesis of Adickes is not even psychologically plausible.
Adickes draws and articulates the consequences of the failure
to locate the philosophical problem Kant intended to deal with in the
Dialectic. But the conclusions that he justifiably draws from this
failure are so absurd, that a more sensible interpretation of the text
must be found. Adickes has pushed his own interpretation a d
absurdum.
The Appearance of a Solution
In the secondary literature two passages from the Dialectic
are often cited in support of the assertion that the antinomy of judgement
rests on a confusion of regulative and constitutive principles.
The first of these is located in §70 shortly after the formal presentation
of the antinomy. There Kant writes:
17 Adickes, Systematik, p. 171.
18 Let me emphasize the subjunctive might. These latter two Critiques are not our
subject matter here, and I do not want to insinuate that they are really supplied
with a Dialectic for purely systematic reasons alone. The point here is merely the
hypothetical question: How long need an antinomy be for reasons of systematics?
Both works demonstrate that a Dialectic need not be very long.