KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

Introduction 57
I shall restrict myself to examining just a few essential points. 3 The
recognition that the position of the thesis is cum grano salis that of
Newton and that the antithesis position is generally that of Leibniz
is itself basically a historical triviality confirmed by any serious
study of the history of science. I take it up here only because much
recent philosophical discussion ignores this simple fact.
W.H. Walsh 4 points out that most English language commentators
up to now have maintained just the opposite attributions (i.e.,
they associate Leibniz with the theses and Newton with the antitheses);
and he further indicates that the reason for this lies in the
fact that Kant himself characterizes the thesis position as
"Platonism" and the antithesis position as "Empiricism." Al Azm
cites T.D. Weldon as a chief exponent of this kind of interpretation;
Weldon asserts: 5
It is immediately clear that Kant considers the theses to be the a priori
contentions of rationalist cosmology, while the antitheses represent the
empiricist attack on it, and also that the truth of the theses rather than that of
the antitheses is desirable both on practical and speculative grounds. For the
theses, in so far as they are true, involve the existence both of God and of a
moral capacity in man, both of which are by implication denied by the
antitheses ...
As Al Azm correctly remarks, this is far from "immediately
clear." As a matter of fact, the only reason for the immediately obvious
nature of this interpretation lies in the fact that Kant has called
the Antithesis position "Empiricism" (B496). However, Kant's
name-giving of course changes nothing in the rationalist content of
the position as laid out in the discussions of the antitheses and only
3 Cf. Al Azm, Origins, and Martin, Kant, pp. 48-58. This insight seems to be
gaining acceptance: cf. Walsh, Criticism, p. 198; Wilkerson, Critique, p. 117;
Allison, Transcendental Idealism, p. 38; even Bennett (Dialectics, pp. 7 and 119)
who does not seem to understand the significance of the connection, does not deny
the historical accuracy of the attributions. Unfortunately, when Al Azm rejects
Strawson's philosophical objections to Kant's arguments as "historically
irrelevant," he allows the impression to arise that he accepts the philosophical
content of the objections as correct.
4 Walsh, Criticism, p. 198.
5 Al Azm, Origins, 3; Weldon, Kant's Critique, pp. 204-5. It is clear from the
language used that Weldon at least is referring to the passage cited by Walsh (i.e.
B494-500). Furthermore, Weldon's misinterpretation, that Kant considers the
thesis to be preferable on speculative grounds, can only be traced to this passage,
where Kant in fact asserts a speculative interest of reason in the thesis position;
however two pages later, Kant informs us that the advantages of the antithesis in
this regard "far exceed" those of the thesis (B496).