BODY AND PRACTICE IN KANT

22
What is this theory? He approaches the answer indirectly, by first
formulating the view to which he is opposed, namely, the idea that force
is something that affects bodies [Körper] only from the outside. Further,
according to this view, only moving bodies possess force, that is, only a
body that moves has the capacity to influence another body. A resting
body, consequently, does not possess force. This, Kant claims, has been
the dominant view up to Leibniz, with the exception only of Aristotle. 27
In addition to Aristotle, Leibniz is mentioned as a philosopher who
understood more about the concept of force than others: Leibniz saw
that a body possesses an essential force even prior to its extension. This
he called its ‘working force’. 28 Unfortunately, according to Kant,
Leibniz’s followers misunderstood this concept and so his project may be
understood as motivated by the intention to restore the theory of working
force to its original state.
Due to the brief and rather unsystematic character of the text, it is
not easy to determine exactly what the theory is that Kant is proposing.
Here is an example of his style, taken from § 4, where for the first time he
purports to be give a positive account of his theory:
Nothing is easier than to deduce the origin of what we call movement
from the general concept of working force. The substance A, which
force is directed to work outside itself (that is, to change the inner
state of other substances), either immediately finds an object which
receives its entire force, or it does not. 29
What does the above passage tell us about Kant’s theory of force and
movement? In the first sentence, he draws a distinction between working
force and movement, but he does not say what he means by movement.
If we consider the context, however, ‘movement’ seems to be used in its
normal sense denoting the movement of material objects in space.
What is the relation between such a movement and a working force?
The concept of a working force has something to do with the origin of a
movement, we are told. More precisely, if we search for the origin of a
movement, then this origin may be deduced from the concept of a
working force. Does this mean that a working force is simply the origin of
a movement? Let us see what the next sentence of the passage says. Here,
the working force of a substance is said to be that in the substance which
makes it possible for it to work outside itself? What does a substance do
when it works outside itself? One possible answer is that it creates a
27
Ak I: 17.
28
Ak I: 17.
29
Ak I: 19, a.t.
THE EMBODIED MIND