KANT'S CRITIQUE OF TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

70 Kant's Logic In contrast to Lambert, Kant does not speak of infinite terms but rather of negative terms or predicates or simply "negations" (Verneinungen), which are the opposite of affirmative terms. This is significant in as much as Kant considers such predicates as being logically opposed to one another or even "contradictorily opposed" even when they are not joined together in a judgment. 25 According to its logical form, says Kant, an infinite judgment is affirmative since it uses the simple copula "est"; but in terms of content the judgment is negative, which affects its role, for instance, in a syllogism. In a later metaphysics lecture Kant remarks that the "infinita are affirmative judgments with regard to the copula, or negative with regard to the predicate. E.g. anima est nonmortalis." 26 In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant justifies the distinction with a reference to the differing intentions of "general" and "transcendental" logic. In like manner infinite judgments must, in transcendental logic, be distinguished from those that are affirmative, although in general logic they are rightly classed with them, and do not constitute a separate member of the division. General logic abstracts from all content of the predicate (even though it be negative); it enquires only whether the predicate be ascribed to the subject or opposed to it. But transcendental logic also considers what may be the value or content of this logical affirmation made by means of a merely negative predicate, and what is thereby gained with respect to our total knowledge. (B*97) It seems at first glance that Kant admits openly that distinguishing infinite judgments as a special kind of judgment does not belong to logic proper and that the distinction is only imported into logic from transcendental philosophy. Accordingly, many commentators have interpreted him as not deriving the categories from the logical functions of the understanding but rather as determining the forms of judgment according to the already invented categories. 27 However, from later reflections and lecture notes it seems clear that Kant considered the distinction of infinite judgments from affirmative and negative to be part of logic. Lorenz Krüger has made the reasonable suggestion that we interpret the expression "transcendental logic" 25 On "contradictorily opposed" predicates or determinations, cf. B48, B298, B486, B599ff. Kant considers two predicates (terms) such as B and non-B to be logically opposed. 26 Ak 29.1,985; the hyphen in "non-mortalis" was (justifiably) inserted by the editors of the "Academy" edition. 27 Cf. Krüger, "Wollte Kant...?" for a discussion of various commentators.
Infinite Judgments 71 in this context as "transcendental reflection upon traditional logic"; this is an interpretation that can easily be reconciled with the text as it stands and fits in very well with Kant's later pronouncements. 28 From this perspective, we can distinguish two logical levels besides the transcendental: a logic of judgments and a logic of terms or predicates. The logical form of the judgment is independent of the positive or negative form of the predicate; "general" logic — as far as quality is concerned — asks only whether the copula is "est" or "non est". But in a transcendental reflection upon logic we consider the "functions" or actions of the understanding in judging; there it could make a difference, if we posit a negation instead of removing an affirmation. The fact that an affirmative (infinite) judgment such as "anima est non-mortalis" can be logically opposed to another affirmative judgment such as "anima est mortalis" depends, according to Kant's analysis, on the content of the two judgments; but the opposition of the content of the two judgments itself depends merely on the form of the predicates, i.e. on the fact that one is the negation of the other. The two judgments differ only in the logical particle 'non' which in one judgment is attached to the predicate. Kant believes that the 'non' in "non-mortal" exercises a formal function and is not just part of the material term. If I say, "The soul is mortal; the soul is everlasting," the two judgments are inconsistent due to their content, due to the meanings of the predicates. But since the differences in meaning of the predicates is not based on a merely formal difference in the predicate terms (such as mortal/non-mortal), their opposition is not purely formal, i.e. properly logical. The passage from the Transcendental Analytic quoted above thus proves to be somewhat ambiguous. Kant asserts that "general logic abstracts from all content of the predicate"; he does not claim that logic abstracts completely from the form of the predicate. Furthermore, the characterization of the predicate in infinite judgements as "merely negative" can only mean that it is supposed to be negative in a formal (and thus logical) sense. Kant cannot be interpreted as meaning "negative" in some transcendental sense, for in terms of transcendental content "non-mortal" or "immortal" (the 28 Krüger, "Wollte Kant...?" p. 348. Cf. Refl. 3071 (Ak 16,640) and Kant's lectures in Ak 24,2,577 and 929.
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 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 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 124 and 125: 114 Antinomy of Freedom the Third a
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 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
152 Heuristic but Necessary Princip
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
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?