Materialism, Lebenskraft and the limits of science: metaphysical vitalism in post-Kantian scenarios

P. Pecere
{"title":"Materialism, Lebenskraft and the limits of science: metaphysical vitalism in post-Kantian scenarios","authors":"P. Pecere","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2021.0078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Kant's legacy in the history of life sciences has notoriously included a critique of the use of soul and ‘vital force’ (Lebenskraft). In this paper I focus on a less-known side of this legacy, i.e. Kant's late critique of vital materialism and its impact on nineteenth-century German science and philosophy. I show that Kant considered materialism as a kind of metaphysical hypothesis since the 1760s and pointed out that it was empirically impossible to distinguish it from different kinds of hypotheses (such as monadology). I focus on Kant's late essay on Samuel Sömmering (1796), arguing that the critical rejection of materialism and the notion of Lebenskraft belonged to an anti-reductive program for life sciences. I maintain that Kant's views influenced Alexander von Humboldt's turn concerning vitalism in the late 1790s and the anti-metaphysical and physicalist epistemology of Hermann von Helmholtz. I follow this Kantian legacy in the works of Friedrich Lange, Emil du Bois-Reymond and Erich Adickes. Finally, I argue that this tradition provides a vantage point to reconsider contemporary debates over materialism and panpsychism.","PeriodicalId":82881,"journal":{"name":"Tanzania notes and records","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tanzania notes and records","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2021.0078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Kant's legacy in the history of life sciences has notoriously included a critique of the use of soul and ‘vital force’ (Lebenskraft). In this paper I focus on a less-known side of this legacy, i.e. Kant's late critique of vital materialism and its impact on nineteenth-century German science and philosophy. I show that Kant considered materialism as a kind of metaphysical hypothesis since the 1760s and pointed out that it was empirically impossible to distinguish it from different kinds of hypotheses (such as monadology). I focus on Kant's late essay on Samuel Sömmering (1796), arguing that the critical rejection of materialism and the notion of Lebenskraft belonged to an anti-reductive program for life sciences. I maintain that Kant's views influenced Alexander von Humboldt's turn concerning vitalism in the late 1790s and the anti-metaphysical and physicalist epistemology of Hermann von Helmholtz. I follow this Kantian legacy in the works of Friedrich Lange, Emil du Bois-Reymond and Erich Adickes. Finally, I argue that this tradition provides a vantage point to reconsider contemporary debates over materialism and panpsychism.
唯物主义、生存法则和科学的极限:后康德情景中的形而上学生机论
康德在生命科学史上留下的遗产包括对灵魂和“生命力”(Lebenskraft)使用的批判。在本文中,我将关注这一遗产中鲜为人知的一面,即康德对生命唯物主义的晚期批判及其对19世纪德国科学和哲学的影响。我指出,康德自18世纪60年代以来就将唯物主义视为一种形而上学的假设,并指出从经验上不可能将它与其他类型的假设(如一元论)区分开来。我将重点放在康德晚期关于塞缪尔Sömmering(1796)的论文上,该论文认为,对唯物主义的批判性拒绝和“生命之本”的概念属于生命科学的反还原程序。我认为康德的观点影响了亚历山大·冯·洪堡在18世纪90年代后期关于生机论的转变,以及赫尔曼·冯·亥姆霍兹的反形而上学和物理主义认识论。我在弗里德里希·兰格、埃米尔·杜波依斯·雷蒙和埃里希·阿迪克斯的作品中继承了康德的遗产。最后,我认为这一传统为重新考虑当代关于唯物主义和泛心论的争论提供了有利的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信