DOCSLIB.ORG

The Lenoir Thesis Revisited: Blumenbach and Kant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Lenoir Thesis Revisited: Blumenbach and Kant Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (2012) 120–132 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc The Lenoir thesis revisited: Blumenbach and Kant John H. Zammito Department of History, MS-42, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA article info abstract Article history: Timothy Lenoir launched the historical study of German life science at the end of the 18th century with Available online 25 June 2011 the claim that J. F. Blumenbach’s approach was shaped by his reception of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant: a ‘teleomechanism’ that adopted a strictly ‘regulative’ approach to the character of organisms. It Keywords: now appears that Lenoir was wrong about Blumenbach’s understanding of Kant, for Blumenbach’s Bil- Timothy Lenoir dungstrieb entailed an actual empirical claim. Moreover, he had worked out the decisive contours of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach his theory and he had exerted his maximal influence on the so-called ‘Göttingen School’ before 1795, Immanuel Kant when Lenoir posits the main influence of Kant’s thought took hold. This has crucial significance for the Teleomechanism historical reconstruction of the German life sciences in the period. The Lenoir thesis can no longer serve Reflective judgment Intrinsic purposiveness as the point of departure for that reconstruction. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1. Introduction (immanent purposiveness) to organisms was never an objective scientific knowledge claim.1 Lenoir organized his reconstruction of Some thirty years ago, now, in pioneering work on the emer- German life science from 1790 to 1860 into three periods: those of gence of biology in Germany at the end of the 18th century, Timo- ‘vital materialism,’ of ‘developmental morphology,’ and of ‘functional thy Lenoir formulated the thesis that the so-called ‘Göttingen morphology.’ (Lenoir, 1981b, p. 298, 1989) My critique will concern School’ around Johann Friedrich Blumenbach took up methodolog- his claims specifically concerning the ‘vital materialism’ of Blumen- ical guidelines developed by Immanuel Kant and established a bach and the ‘Göttingen School’ in the 1790s.2 While Lenoir has strictly heuristic (or in Kantian language, regulative) notion of ‘tel- many interesting claims concerning ‘teleo-mechanism’ in the nine- eo-mechanism,’ whereby the imputation of natural teleology teenth century, these will not enter into consideration here.3 E-mail address: [email protected] 1 ‘My principal thesis is that the development of biology in Germany during the first half of the nineteenth century was guided by a core of ideas and a program for research set forth initially during the 1790s. The clearest formulation of those ideas is to be found in the writings of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. I do not claim that German biologists discovered a program of research in Kant’s writings which they set out to realize in practice rather that in the latter part of the eighteenth century a number of biologists were seeking to establish a foundation for constructing a consistent body of unified theory for the life sciences which could adapt the methods and conceptual framework of Newtonian science to the special requirements of investigating biological organisms. Kant stepped into this ongoing dialogue and set forth a clear synthesis. It was through Blumenbach and his students that Kant’s special brand of teleology entered biology.’ (Lenoir, 1989, pp. 2–3) See also Lenoir (1978, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1988). For thoughtful critiques, see Caneva (1990), Richards (2002). 2 I thank the peer reviewer on my piece for urging me to specify exactly what in Lenoir’s thesis I am disputing and to cite sources. In that light, since my emphasis is on the Kant-Blumenbach relationship, I would point out that it is Lenoir’s articles, not his book of 1982/1989, that spell out the details of his view, as he admits in the book: ‘Elsewhere I have attempted to document in detail the relationship between these two men and the extent to which Blumenbach incorporated Kant’s work into the mature formulation of his ideas.’ (Lenoir, 1989, p. 22) He refers the reader specifically to Lenoir (1980). It is with that text (and the other articles) that I will be primarily engaging. 3 Of course, Kant was for nineteenth-century Germans an eminence fervently to be invoked as a model or warrant. (See Friedman & Nordmann, 2006). Yet whether the Kant they invoked was the historical Kant, and whether, more significantly, they really needed (or even used, rather than mentioned) Kant for their undertakings: these are matters that allow for more than one reading. That is, first: whatever they thought Kant meant (assuming we can establish that), there is a whole guild devoted to jousting over what Kant really meant, and jousters sometimes decide the best way to win the day is to proclaim what he should have meant. Usually that involves dismissing what others have thought Kant meant/should have meant. The nineteenth-century Kant reception falls fully within this conspectus, and Lenoir’s book documents some striking instances of this. Second: the arguments of nineteenth-century biologists typically involved both theoretical and empirical elements that were simply not part of Kant’s possible intellectual horizon, and these, rather than any direct appeal to Kant, appear far more plausibly central to their actual arguments, though Kant was always a rhetorical trump card, if he could be plausibly invoked. In any event, these are not questions here to be pursued. 1369-8486/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.011 J.H. Zammito / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (2012) 120–132 121 In Lenoir’s view, Kant’s philosophy of science played a major theory of race after 1795 which he associates with Kant. (Bernas- role ‘in helping to shape the theoretical foundations of the life coni, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; compare Lagier, 2004) Phillip Sloan sees sciences’ led by Blumenbach after 1790. (Lenoir, 1980, p. 77) a substantial influence of Kant on Blumenbach’s ideas about spe- ‘Initiated by Kant’s probing insights, the goal of uniting the tel- cies and organic form in these years, especially via the work of eological and mechanical frameworks of explanation was a topic his student and associate, Christoph Girtanner, (Sloan, 1979)5 of central importance in discussion on the philosophy of nature There is also evidence in the converse direction, i.e., Kant’s assimila- in the 1790s.’ (Lenoir, 1980, p. 83n) Concretely, Lenoir claimed: tion of Blumenbach’s scientific work into his own exposition of phi- ‘from the late 1780s to the late 1790s Blumenbach’s ideas on losophy of science. Was this a real convergence or was it a mutual natural history underwent a thorough revision in light of Kant’s misunderstanding? (Richards, 2000; compare Jardine, 2000, pp. analysis of the conceptual foundations for the construction of a 11–55) scientific theory of organic form.’ (Lenoir, 1980, p. 77) Lenoir There is no question that Blumenbach increasingly inflected found evidence of ‘a revolution in [Blumenbach’s] whole manner his theory of the Bildungstrieb in language taken from Kant. of thinking about the phenomena of natural history’ in the years There is similarly no question that he incorporated a great deal 1795–1797. (Lenoir, 1980, p. 77) Thus, ‘Blumenbach’s most sig- of Kant’s theory of race into his later writing. (See esp, Blumen- nificant achievement, from our point of view, was to synthesize bach, 1795) My question is whether Blumenbach actually under- some of the best elements of Enlightenment thought on biology stood and accepted the epistemological prescriptions of Kant for [...] in terms of a view of biological organization that he found biological science. Robert Richards has suggested that Blumen- in the writings of Kant.’ (Lenoir, 1981a, p. 115) That thesis has bach’s practice was in fact inconsistent with Kant’s prescriptions, remained a powerful influence on the field to this day, but it and that Kant improperly assimilated Blumenbach’s practices to has serious problems both as a historical claim about the ‘Göt- his prescriptions. (Richards, 2000, 2002, pp. 221–237) I agree tingen School’ and its founder, Blumenbach, as well as for the with Richards. (Zammito, 2003) I believe that Lenoir misunder- larger question of the place of natural teleology in the history stands both Kant and Blumenbach at crucial points, enabling a of modern biology and even for its status as a special science false assimilation of their positions. Lenoir does detect a crucial today. metaphysical and methodological agreement between Kant and Lenoir notes: ‘It cannot be argued that Blumenbach fashioned Blumenbach: ‘it is not possible to reduce life to physics or ex- himself a follower of Kant.’ Instead, ‘Kant’s main contribution to plain biological organization in terms of physical principles. Blumenbach’s work was in making explicit the quite extraordi- Rather, organization must be accepted as the primary given nary assumptions behind the model of the Bildungstrieb.’ (Lenoir, [...] At the limits of mechanical explanation in biology we must 1989, pp. 22, 24) My claim is that these were not Blumenbach’s assume the presence of other types of forces following different assumptions, and that he could never assimilate them as types of laws than those of physics. These forces can never be assumptions, even after he became aware of Kant’s ‘contribu- constructed a priori from other natural forces, but they can be tion.’4 I dispute that any ‘revolution in [Blumenbach’s] whole the object of research.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Note: This Is a Pre-Print, Draft Manuscript of Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: a Kantian Environmental Ethic (Routledge, 2016)
    Note: This is a pre-print, draft manuscript of Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic (Routledge, 2016). If citing, please consult the published version, which contains substantial revisions. Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic Draft of Complete Manuscript Toby Svoboda Table of Contents • Introduction: Kant and Environmental Ethics • Chapter 1: Traditional Approaches to Environmental Ethics • Chapter 2: Kantian Approaches to Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics • Chapter 3: Indirect Duties, Moral Perfection, and Virtuous Dispositions • Chapter 4: Teleology and Non-Human Flourishing • Chapter 5: A Kantian Environmental Virtue Ethic • Conclusion: Advantages of the Kantian Environmental Virtue Ethic • References Introduction, 1 Introduction: Kant and Environmental Ethics Why Environmental Ethics? I have set out in this book to develop and defend a Kantian approach to environmental ethics. This immediately raises a question: why should we want an environmental ethic at all, much less a Kantian one? Human beings face serious environmental problems, such as those associated with climate change, loss of biodiversity, and air pollution.1 It seems clear that these problems have various ethical dimensions, given that they threaten to increase human mortality rates, cause substantial harm to present and future generations, and exacerbate socio-economic injustice.2 Moreover, the impact of human activities on the environment, such as ocean acidification due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
    [Show full text]
  • Forthcoming in the Kant Yearbook, Vol. 11 (2019) Final Draft – Please Cite the Published Version for Correct Pagination
    Forthcoming in The Kant Yearbook, Vol. 11 (2019) Final Draft – Please cite the published version for correct pagination Can there be a Finite Interpretation of the Kantian Sublime? Sacha Golob (King’s College London) Abstract Kant’s account of the sublime makes frequent appeals to infinity, appeals which have been extensively criticised by commentators such as Budd and Crowther. This paper examines the costs and benefits of reconstructing the account in finitist terms. On the one hand, drawing on a detailed comparison of the first and third Critiques, I argue that the underlying logic of Kant’s position is essentially finitist. I defend the approach against longstanding objections, as well as addressing recent infinitist work by Moore and Smith. On the other hand, however, I argue that finitism faces distinctive problems of its own: whilst the resultant theory is a coherent and interesting one, it is unclear in what sense it remains an analysis of the sublime. I illustrate the worry by juxtaposing the finitist reading with analytical cubism. §1 – Introduction Kant’s account of the sublime makes frequent reference to infinity. The “intuition” of the sublime “carries with it the idea of...infinity”; apprehension “can progress to infinity” [kann…ins Unendliche gehen]; imagination “strives to progress towards infinity” [ein Bestreben zum Fortschritte ins Unendliche]; reason demands that we “think the infinite as a whole” (KU 5:255, 252, 250, 254).1 It is obvious that the infinite played a central role in Kant’s own presentation of the problem. It is less clear whether such references are 1 References are to the standard Akademie edition of Kant’s gesammelte Schriften (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1900–; abbreviated as Ak.): Anth: Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Ak.
    [Show full text]
  • For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of the Canon Dilek Huseyinzadegan Emory University, [email protected]
    Feminist Philosophy Quarterly Volume 4 | Issue 1 Article 3 2018 For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of the Canon Dilek Huseyinzadegan Emory University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fpq Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, European History Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, Other Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Huseyinzadegan, Dilek. 2018. "For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of the Canon." Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4, (1). Article 3. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fpq/vol4/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Feminist Philosophy Quarterly by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Huseyinzadegan: For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of the Canon Dilek Huseyinzadegan Abstract As feminist scholars, we hope that our own work is exempt from structural problems such as racism, sexism, and Eurocentrism, that is, the kind of problems that are exemplified and enacted by Kant’s works. In other words, we hope that we do not re-enact, implicitly or explicitly, Kant’s problematic claims, which range from the unnaturalness of a female philosopher, “who might as well have a beard,” the stupid things that a black carpenter said “because he was black from head to foot,” the poor women “living in the greatest slavery in the Orient,” to the “sheep-like existence of the inhabitants of Tahiti.” In this piece, I argue that we cannot simply hope to avoid these problems unless we are vigilant about incorporating the full picture of Kant’s and Kantian philosophy into our feminist appropriations.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Andrew Stephenson
    CV (short) DR ANDREW STEPHENSON Trinity College Email: [email protected] Oxford OX BH Website: www.acstephenson.com AOS: KANT AOC: Mind, Epistemology, Religion, Post- Kantian Philosophy, Wittgenstein EMPLOYMENT Apr - Apr Leverhulme Research Fellow, Humboldt University, Berlin Oct - Mar Career Development Lecturer, Trinity College, Oxford EDUCATION - D.Phil. in Philosophy (cont.), University of Oxford - Leave of Absence due to serious spinal injury – fully recovered - Language Student, Stiftung Maximilianeum and LMU, Munich - D.Phil. in Philosophy, University of Oxford - B.Phil. in Philosophy, University of Oxford - B.A. in Philosophy, Cardiff University RESEARCH Articles • Kant, the Paradox of Knowability, and the Meaning of ‘Experience’, Philosophers’ Imprint (forthcoming) • Imagination and Phenomenal Character, in Kant and the Philosophy of Mind (Oxford University Press, forthcoming) • Kant on the Object-Dependence of Intuition and Hallucination, The Philosophical Quarterly () • Kant’s Deduction from Apperception?, Studi Kantiani (), - • Kant on Non-Veridical Experience, Kant Yearbook (), - Book (editor) • Kant and the Philosophy of Mind: New Essays on Consciousness, Judgement, and the Self, co-edited with Anil Gomes, Oxford University Press (forthcoming) Under Review (available from website or on request) • Kant, A Priori Knowability, and Tacit Knowledge Some Recent/Upcoming Presentations • Kant and the Logic of Knowability, Sept , International Kant Congress, Vienna • Kant’s Manifest Realism?, Sept , Colloquium
    [Show full text]
  • Final Draft Jury
    Freedom in Conflict On Kant’s Critique of Medical Reason Jonas Gerlings Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Florence, 24 February 2017. European University Institute Department of History and Civilization Freedom in Conflict On Kant’s Critique of Medical Reason Jonas Gerlings Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Examining Board Prof. Dr. Martin van Gelderen, EUI, Lichtenberg-Kolleg – The Göttingen Institute for Advanced Study (Supervisor) Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans Erich Bödeker, Lichtenberg-Kolleg – The Göttingen Institute for Advanced Study Prof. Stéphane Van Damme, European University Institute Senior Lecturer, Dr. Avi Lifschitz, UCL © Jonas Gerlings, 2016 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Researcher declaration to accompany the submission of written work Department of History and Civilization - Doctoral Programme I Jonas Gerlings certify that I am the author of the work Freedom in Conflict – Kant’s Critique of Medical Reason I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. at the European University Institute. I also certify that this is solely my own original work, other than where I have clearly indicated, in this declaration and in the thesis, that it is the work of others. I warrant that I have obtained all the permissions required for using any material from other copyrighted publications. I certify that this work complies with the Code of Ethics in Academic Research issued by the European University Institute (IUE 332/2/10 (CA 297).
    [Show full text]
  • Morganna F. Lambeth Department of Philosophy [email protected] Purdue University 773-682-2320 West Lafayette, in 47907-2098
    Morganna F. Lambeth Department of Philosophy [email protected] Purdue University 773-682-2320 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098 Current Position 2018-2021 Purdue University, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy and Cornerstone Fall 2018 Instruction: PHIL 111: Ethics (2 x 35 students) Spring 2019 Instruction: SCLA 101: Transformative Texts (30 students) PHIL 411: Modern Ethical Theories (35 students) Education 2011-2018 Northwestern University, Doctoral Program in Philosophy Ph.D. in Philosophy Dissertation: Rethinking the Structure of Events: Heidegger on Kant and the Concept of Cause Committee: Cristina Lafont (Chair), Rachel Zuckert, Mark Wrathall ABSTRACT: I draw on Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant to argue that Kant overestimates the role that causality plays in structuring our experience. Heidegger suggests that Kant’s analysis of experience mistakenly universalizes a fraction of our experience: the experience of mechanical objects. I defend the merits of this suggestion by offering a careful reconstruction of Heidegger’s controversial interpretation of the imagination and applying this interpretation in detail to one of the most debated segments of the Critique of Pure Reason: the Second Analogy. In this chapter, Kant suggests that we must employ the concept of cause in order to be aware that an event (i.e. a change in states) has occurred. While Kant’s mechanical account of events captures our experience of mechanical objects, I argue that his analysis does not capture our experience of events initiated by humans. I suggest that we experience human events rather as components of an overarching project oriented toward some goal. 2009-2011 University of California at Riverside, Doctoral Program in Philosophy M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Rachel Elizabeth Zuckert Department of Philosophy 5728 N. Kenmore
    Rachel Elizabeth Zuckert Department of Philosophy 5728 N. Kenmore Ave, 3N Northwestern University Chicago, IL 60660 Kresge 3-512 1880 Campus Drive home: (773) 728-7927 Evanston, IL 60208 work: (847) 491-2556 [email protected] Education: 2000 PhD, University of Chicago, Department of Philosophy and the Committee on Social Thought 1995 MA, University of Chicago, Committee on Social Thought 1992 B.A. (1), Oxford University (Philosophy and Modern Languages) 1990 B.A. (Summa Cum Laude; Highest Honors in Philosophy; Phi Beta Kappa), Williams College Areas of Specialization: Kant and eighteenth-century philosophy Aesthetics Areas of Competence: Early modern philosophy Nineteenth-century philosophy Feminist philosophy Languages: French German Academic Employment: 2018- Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University; affiliated with the German Department 2008-18 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University; affiliated with the German Department 2011-18 2006-2008 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University 2001-2006 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rice University 1999-2001 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Bucknell University Zuckert 2 Publications: Books Kant on Beauty and Biology: An Interpretation of the Critique of Judgment, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Awarded the American Society for Aesthetics Monograph Prize (2008); reviewed in British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Comparative and Continental Philosophy, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Metascience, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Review of Metaphysics, and subject of review essays in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and Kant Yearbook Herder’s Naturalist Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming (2019). Edited Volume Hegel on Philosophy in History, co-edited with James Kreines, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal List Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) 2020
    JOURNAL TITLE ISSN eISSN PUBSLISHER NAME PUBLISHER ADDRESS 3C EMPRESA 2254‐3376 2254‐3376 AREA INNOVACION & DESARROLLO C/ELS ALZAMORA NO 17, ALCOY, ALICANTE, SPAIN, 03802 3C TECNOLOGIA 2254‐4143 2254‐4143 3CIENCIAS C/ SANTA ROSA 15, ALCOY, SPAIN, 03802 3C TIC 2254‐6529 2254‐6529 AREA INNOVACION & DESARROLLO C/ELS ALZAMORA NO 17, ALCOY, ALICANTE, SPAIN, 03802 3D RESEARCH 2092‐6731 2092‐6731 SPRINGER HEIDELBERG TIERGARTENSTRASSE 17, HEIDELBERG, GERMANY, D‐69121 3L‐LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS LITERATURE‐THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES 0128‐5157 2550‐2247 PENERBIT UNIV KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA PENERBIT UNIV KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA, FAC ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT, BANGI, MALAYSIA, SELANGOR, 43600 452 F‐REVISTA DE TEORIA DE LA LITERATURA Y LITERATURA COMPARADA 2013‐3294 UNIV BARCELONA, FACULTAD FILOLOGIA GRAN VIA DE LES CORTS CATALANES, 585, BARCELONA, SPAIN, 08007 AACA DIGITAL 1988‐5180 1988‐5180 ASOC ARAGONESA CRITICOS ARTE ASOC ARAGONESA CRITICOS ARTE, HUESCA, SPAIN, 00000 AACN ADVANCED CRITICAL CARE 1559‐7768 1559‐7776 AMER ASSOC CRITICAL CARE NURSES 101 COLUMBIA, ALISO VIEJO, USA, CA, 92656 A & A PRACTICE 2325‐7237 2325‐7237 LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, USA, PA, 19103 ABAKOS 2316‐9451 2316‐9451 PONTIFICIA UNIV CATOLICA MINAS GERAIS DEPT CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS, AV DOM JOSE GASPAR 500, CORACAO EUCARISTICO, CEP: 30.535‐610, BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL, MG, 00000 ABANICO VETERINARIO 2007‐4204 2007‐4204 SERGIO MARTINEZ GONZALEZ TEZONTLE 171 PEDREGAL SAN JUAN, TEPIC NAYARIT, MEXICO, C P 63164 ABCD‐ARQUIVOS
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Ameriks, University of Notre Dame “Kant's Elliptical Path: on The
    Karl Ameriks, University of Notre Dame “Kant’s Elliptical Path: On the Stages, Limits, and Aftermath of Critical Philosophy” Karl Ameriks is the McMahon-Hank Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and specializes in the history of modern philosophy, continental philosophy, and modern German philosophy. Much of his research is dedicated to the study of Immanuel Kant about whom he has published multiple books. His most recent monographs include Kant's Theory of Mind: An Analysis of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason (2000), and Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy (2000), Interpreting Kant’s Critiques (2003), Kant and the Historical Turn: Philosophy as Critical Interpretation (2006), and more than 100 articles and scholarly writings. He is a founding co-editor of Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus (International Yearbook of German Idealism) and since 1994 he has served as a co-editor of the approximately 70-volume series, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. He has served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Journal of the History of Philosophy and on the editorial boards of Owl of Minerva (Hegel Society of America), Critical Horizons, Kant Yearbook, Oxford Philosophical Concepts, and Philosophisches Jahrbuch. A faculty fellow in Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute for European Studies, Professor Ameriks was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) in 2009. Among his many prestigious honors and awards are several fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the Earhart Foundation (most recently in 2010) and an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Transcendental Philosophy 2021; 2(1): 21–45
    Journal of Transcendental Philosophy 2021; 2(1): 21–45 Brigitte Falkenburg* Edgar Wind on Experiment and Metaphysics https://doi.org/10.1515/jtph-2020-0038 Published online April 26, 2021 Abstract: The paper presents a detailed interpretation of Edgar Wind’s Experiment and Metaphysics (1934), a unique work on the philosophy of physics which broke with the Neo-Kantian tradition under the influence of American pragmatism. Taking up Cassirer’s interpretation of physics, Wind develops a holistic theory of the experiment and a constructivist account of empirical facts. Based on the concept of embodiment which plays a key role in Wind’s later writings on art history, he argues, however, that the outcomes of measurements are contingent. He then proposes an anti-Kantian conception of a metaphysics of nature. For him, nature is an unknown totality which manifests itself in discrepancies between theories and experiment, and hence the theory formation of physics can increas- ingly approximate the structure of nature. It is shown that this view is ambiguous between a transcendental, metaphysical realism in Kant’s sense and an internal realism in Putnam’s sense. Wind’s central claim is that twentieth century physics offers new options for resolving Kant’s cosmological antinomies. In particular, he connected quantum indeterminism with the possibility of human freedom, a connection that Cassirer sharply opposed. Keywords: cosmological antinomy, experiment, metaphysics, Edgar wind, embodiment 1 Introduction Edgar Wind’s Experiment and Metaphysics (Wind 1934, 2001) is a neglected work in the philosophy of science. When it was published, Wind, like Cassirer and many other scholars, had already left Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • «Kant on Science and Rationality»
    IMMANUEL KANT BALTIC FEDERAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR THE HUMANITIES ACADEMIA KANTIANA THE THIRD IMMANUEL KANT INTERNATIONAL SUMMER SCHOOL «KANT ON SCIENCE AND RATIONALITY» JULY 22 - 28, 2019 KALININGRAD REGION, SVETLOGORSK, HOTEL «BALTIKA» IMMANUEL KANT BALTIC FEDERAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR THE HUMANITIES ACADEMIA KANTIANA THE THIRD IMMANUEL KANT INTERNATIONAL SUMMER SCHOOL «KANT ON SCIENCE AND RATIONALITY» Program Abstracts JULY 22 – 28, 2019 KALININGRAD REGION, SVETLOGORSK, HOTEL «BALTIKA» 1 Scientific Supervisor and Lecturer Prof. Dr. Thomas Sturm Autonomous University of Barcelona Scientific Assistants Dr. habil. Vadim A. Chaly Dr. Rudolf Meer Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Chairperson Prof. Dr. Nina A. Dmitrieva Scientific Director of the Academia Kantiana Deputy Chairperson Dr. Leonid Yu. Kornilaev Research Fellow of the Academia Kantiana Members Dr. habil. Vadim A. Chaly Senior Research Fellow of the Academia Kantiana Dr. Rudolf Meer Senior Research Fellow of the Academia Kantiana Dr. Mikhail Yu. Zagirnyak Research Fellow of the Academia Kantiana Andrey S. Zilber Junior Research Fellow of the Academia Kantiana 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summer School Program 4 Abstracts Fabian Burt: Kant’s Cosmology and the Regulative Use of the Cosmological Principle 9 Aaron Higgins-Brake: Science, Metaphysics, and Methodology in Kant’s Prize Essay 12 Luciana Martínez: The Role of Unconscious Representations for the Development of 16 Sciences during the Silent Decade Michael Lewin: Methodological Principles
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Table of Contents
    CURRICULUM VITAE Revised February 2015 ADRIAN MARGARET SMITH PIPER Born 20 September 1948, New York City TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Educational Record ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Languages...................................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Philosophy Dissertation Topic.................................................................................................................. 2 4. Areas of Special Competence in Philosophy ......................................................................................... 2 5. Other Areas of Research Interest in Philosophy ................................................................................... 2 6. Teaching Experience.................................................................................................................................... 2 7. Fellowships and Awards in Philosophy ................................................................................................. 4 8. Professional Philosophical Associations................................................................................................. 4 9. Service to the Profession of Philosophy .................................................................................................. 5 10. Invited Papers and Conferences in Philosophy .................................................................................
    [Show full text]