Teleology then and now: The question of Kant’s relevance for contemporary controversies over function in biology

Zammito, John H.

doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.09.008

Cited by 62 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An important contribution in this respect is the notion of homeostasis formulated by Walter Cannon (1929), which expresses the capability of actively compensating for 6 See for example Zammito (2006) and Sloan (2012).…”

Section: Naturalising Teleology: From Selection To Organisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes biological organisation teleological?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that biological organisation can be legitimately conceived of as an intrinsically teleological causal regime. The core of the argument consists in establishing a connection between organisation and teleology through the concept of self-determination: biological organisation determines itself in the sense that the effects of its activity contribute to determine its own conditions of existence. We suggest that not any kind of circular regime realises self-determination, which should be specifically understood as self-constraint: in biological systems, in particular, self-constraint takes the form of closure, i.e. a network of mutually dependent constitutive constraints. We then explore the occurrence of intrinsic teleology in the biological domain and beyond. On the one hand, the organisational account might possibly concede that supra-organismal biological systems (as symbioses or ecosystems) could realise closure, and hence be teleological. On the other hand, the realisation of closure beyond the biological realm appears to be highly unlikely. In turn, the occurrence of simpler forms of self-determination remains a controversial issue, in particular with respect to the case of self-organising dissipative systems.

show abstract

Section: Naturalising Teleology: From Selection To Organisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes biological organisation teleological?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We return to this topic in the final section. 6 This statement of Kant's is often quoted approvingly, a rare exception being Zammito (2006), who notes that Kant is neatly placing himself in the rearguard of scientific thought of his time concerning living entities. Our point here is simply to note the existence of this influential position according to which 'Life' is not reducible to a certain set of empirical (measurable, quantifiable) features.…”

Section: Canguilhem and The Life Of An Individualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canguilhem and the Logic of Life

Etxeberría

Wolfe

2018

Transversal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper we examine aspects of Canguilhem's philosophy of biology, concerning the knowledge of life and its consequences on science and vitalism. His concept of life stems from the idea of a living individual, endowed with creative subjectivity and norms, a Kantian view which "disconcerts logic". In contrast, two different approaches ground naturalistic perspectives to explore the logic of life (Jacob) and the logic of the living individual (Maturana and Varela) in the 1970s. Although Canguilhem is closer to the second, there are divergences; for example, unlike them, he does not dismiss vitalism, often referring to it in his work and even at times describing himself as a vitalist. The reason may lie in their different views of science.

show abstract

“…En el extremo opuesto, se ha dicho que Kant tiene poco que ofrecer al naturalismo, que habría de inspirarse en filosofías que afronten el problema de la naturaleza orgánica desde una perspectiva ontológica (y no epistemológica). Es el caso de Zammito (2006), quien cree que la vuelta a la distinción aristotélica entre causa material y formal o a la discriminación de Locke entre partes y partículas, donde la «teleología intrín-seca» se considera ontológicamente, resultaría mucho más provechosa para una reconceptualización de la investigación biológica de los rasgos asociados a la autorregulación. Coincidimos con Zammito en la necesidad de recuperar la reflexión ontológica sobre los organismos, pero, a su vez, creemos también que las herramientas matemáticas desarrolladas en el último siglo para modelizar los sistemas complejos permiten replantear el concepto de intuición (Pérez Herranz 1998) y legitimar así, epistemológicamente, una nueva ciencia de los organismos.…”

Section: Conclusionesunclassified

“…Como vemos, y aunque resulte paradójico, tanto quienes alaban la teoría darwinista de la evolución como quienes la cuestionan reclaman a Kant como predecesor (Zammito 2006). ¿Cómo es esto posible?…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

¿Fue Darwin el «Newton de la brizna de hierba»? La herencia de Kant en la teoría darwinista de la evolución

Rosa¹,

Etxeberría²

2010

Endoxa (Madr.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN: La crítica kantiana legó una doble herencia a la biología decimonónica: su noción de ciencia basada en el mecanicismo newtoniano configuró epistemológicamente la teoría de la evolución darwinista, mientras que su comprensión de los organismos se tradujo en una morfología teleoló-gica. En este artículo planteamos dos cuestiones en torno la relación entre las ideas de Kant y Darwin: 1) si Kant habría considerado a Darwin el Newton de la biología, a lo que, con matices, respondemos afirmativamente; 2) si la física newtoniana es hoy suficiente para naturalizar lo orgánico. Nuestra respuesta negativa se fundamenta en las ciencias de la autoorganización y la evo-devo, que permiten plantear la naturalización de la concepción kantiana de los organismos.

show abstract

Teleology then and now: The question of Kant’s relevance for contemporary controversies over function in biology

Cited by 62 publications

References 43 publications

What makes biological organisation teleological?

What makes biological organisation teleological?

Canguilhem and the Logic of Life

¿Fue Darwin el «Newton de la brizna de hierba»? La herencia de Kant en la teoría darwinista de la evolución

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About