Resumo
Como Kant responde à controvérsia pré-formação-epigênese do início da era moderna? Na parte 1 do artigo, apresentarei o contexto histórico: forneço uma visão geral das características sistemáticas importantes dos relatos pré-formacionistas ovísticos e animalculistas (1.1) e epigenéticos mecânicos e vitalísticos (1.2) da reprodução e hereditariedade do início da modernidade. Na parte 2 do artigo, por sua vez, apresentarei o debate acadêmico (2.1) acerca da recepção de Kant da controvérsia do início da era moderna: embora ninguém considere Kant um defensor radical da pré-formação, alguns estudiosos o consideram um defensor mais ou menos radical da epigênese. Um número maior de estudiosos lê a posição de Kant como uma combinação de elementos pré-formacionistas e epigenéticos. Outros ignoram ou mesmo negam qualquer influência da controvérsia pré-formação-epigênese sobre Kant. Com base em uma análise dos elementos pré-formacionistas (2.2) e epigenéticos (2.3) nos escritos relevantes de Kant, apoiarei os estudiosos (2.4) que afirmam que a posição de Kant contém elementos pré-formacionistas e epigenéticos, mas o farei em uma análise mais abrangente de critérios. Também irei além das discussões existentes, decidindo se a descrição de Kant estava mais próxima de variantes ovísticas ou animalculistas de pré-formação, e variantes mecânicas ou vitalísticas de epigênese.
Referências
The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds.). Cambridge University Press (1992–). [abbreviated as CE]
Anthropology, History, and Education (G. Zöller & R. B. Louden, Eds.; M. Gregor, P. Guyer, R. B. Louden, H. Wilson, A. W. Wood, G. Zöller, & A. Zweig, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (2007).
Critique of the Power of Judgment (P. Guyer, Ed. & Trans.; E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (2000).
Theoretical Philosophy. 1755–1781 (D. Walford, Ed. & Trans., in collaboration with R. Meerbote). Cambridge University Press. (1992).
Notes and Fragments (P. Guyer, Ed.; C. Bowman, P. Guyer, and F. Rauscher, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (2005).
Kant, I. (1790). Critique of the Power of Judgment [KU]. In CE Critique of the Power of Judgment (pp. 53–346) (Kritik der Urteilskraft, AA 5: 165–486).
Kant, I. (1763). The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God [BDG]. In CE Theoretical Philosophy. 1755–1781 (pp. 102–201) (Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes, AA 2: 63–163).
Kant, I. (1785). Determination of the Concept of a Human Race [BBMR]. In CE Anthropology, History, and Education (pp. 145–159) (Bestimmung des Begriffs einer Menschenrace, AA 8: 91–106).
Kant, I. (1775). Of the Different Races of Human Beings [VvRM]. In CE Anthropology, History, and Education (pp. 84–97) (Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen, AA 2: 429–43).
Kant, I. (2005). Notes and Fragments [Refl]. In CE Notes and Fragments (Reflexionen, AA 14–20, 23)
Kant, I. (1788). On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy [ÜGTP]. In CE Anthropology, History, and Education (pp. 195–218) (Über den Gebrauch teleologischer Principien in der Philosophie, AA 8: 159–84).
Other References
Blumenbach, J. F. (1781/21789/31791). Über den Bildungstrieb und das Zeugungsgeschäfte. Johann Christian Dieterich.
Bonnet, C. (1762). Considérations sur les corps organisés, Où l’on traite de leur origine, de leur développement, de leur réproduction, &c. & où l’on a rassemblé en abrégé tout ce que l’histoire naturelle offre de plus certain & de plus intéressant sur le sujet (Tomes I/II). Marc-Michel Rey.
Bowler, P. J. (1971). Preformation and Pre-existence in the Seventeenth Century: A Brief Analysis. Journal of the History of Biology, 4, 221–44.
Buffon, G.-L. L. de. (1749). Histoire naturelle générale et particulière (Tomes I/II). de l’Imprimerie Royale (1749–1788).
Breitenbach, A. (2009). Die Analogie von Vernunft und Natur. Ansatz zu einer Umweltphilosophie nach Kant. De Gruyter.
Cheung, T. (2008). Res vivens. Agentenmodelle organischer Ordnung 1600–1800. Rombach.
Correira, C. P. (1997). The Ovary of Eve. Egg, Sperm, and Preformation. The University of Chicago Press.
Demarest, B. (2017). Kant’s Epigenesis: Specificity and Developmental Constraints. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 39(1), 1–19.
Duchesneau, F. (2000). Épigenèse de la raison pure et analogies biologiques. In F. Duchesneau, G. Lafrance, & C. Piché (Eds.), Kant actuel (pp. 233–56). Vrin; Bellarmin.
Fisher, M. (2014). Metaphysics and Physiology in Kant’s Attitude Towards Theories of Preformation. In I. Goy & E. Watkins (Eds.), Kant’s Theory of Biology (pp. 25–41). De Gruyter.
Genova, A. (1974). Kant’s Epigenesis of Pure Reason. Kant-Studien, 65, 259–73.
Goethe, J. W. (1790). Metamorphose der Pflanzen. In D. Kuhn & R. Wankmüller (Eds.), Goethes Werke. Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften I (Vol. 13; pp. 51–101). C.H. Beck. (1999).
Greene, M., & Depew, D. (2004). The Philosophy of Biology: An Episodic History. Cambridge University Press.
Goy, I. (2014). Epigenetische Theorien. Caspar Friedrich Wolff und Immanuel Kant. In I. Goy & E. Watkins (Eds.), Kant’s Theory of Biology (pp. 25–41). De Gruyter.
Goy, I. (2017). Kants Theorie der Biologie. Ein Kommentar. Eine Lesart. Eine historische Einordnung. De Gruyter.
Goy, I. (2018). Was Aristotle the “Father” of the Epigenesis Doctrine? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 40(2), 1–16.
Hartsoeker, N. (1678). Extrait d’une Lettre de M. Nicolas Hartsoker écrite à l’Auteur du Journal touchant la maniere da faire les nouveaux Microscopes, dant il a esté parle dans le Journal il y a quelques jours. Journal des Sçavans, 30, 378–81.
Hartsoeker, N. (1694). Essay de dioptrique (Anisson, repr.) Kessinger Publishing’s.
Harveo, G. (1651). Exercitationes de generatione animalium. Quibus accedunt quaedam de partu: de membranis ac humoribus uteri: & de conceptione. Amstelaedami: Ioannem Ravesteynium; Harveo, Guilielmo. 1651. “On Animal Generation.” In The Works of William Harvey (R. Willis, Trans.; pp. 169–518). Johnson. (1965).
Huneman, P. (2006). From Comparative Anatomy to the “Adventures of Reason”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), 649–74.
Huneman, P. (Ed.). (2007). Understanding Purpose: Collected Essays on Kant and Philosophy of Biology. University of Rochester Press.
Huneman, P. (2008). Métaphysique et biologie. Kant et la constitution du concept d’organisme. Kimé.
Ingensiep, H. (1994). Die biologischen Analogien und die erkenntnistheoretischen Alternativen in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft B 27. Kant-Studien, 85, 381–93.
Jantzen, J. (1994). Physiologische Theorien. In Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Ergänzungsband zu Werke Band 5 bis 9. Wissenschaftshistorischer Bericht zu Schellings naturphilosophischen Schriften 1797–1800 (pp. 375–668). Frommann Holzboog.
Leeuwenhoek, A von. Alle de brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek/The Collected Letters, edited, illustrated and annotated by a Committee of Dutch scientists (Vols. I–X). Swets & Zeitlinger. Ltd. (1939ff).
Leibniz, G. W. (1714). Les principes de la philosophie ou la monadologie (Die Prinzipien der Philosophie oder die Monadologie). In H. H. Holz (Ed.) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Philosophische Schriften (H. H. Holz, Trans.; Vol. I, pp. 438–83). Suhrkamp. (1996).
Malpighius, M. (1675/9). Anatome plantarum (Tomes I/II). Scott & Wells.
Maupertuis, P.-L. M. de. (1744). Dissertation physique à l’occasion du nègre blanc. Leyde: without press (the second edition, which is the fundamental reference in scientific contexts, appeared 21745 under the title Venus physique, I quote from the seventh edition 21745/71777).
McLaughlin, P. (1989). Kants Kritik der teleologischen Urteilskraft. Bouvier.
Mensch, J. (2013). Kant’s Organicism. Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press.
Quarfood, M. (2004). Acquisitio Originaria and Epigenesis. Metaphors for the A Priori. In M. Quarfood, Transcendental Idealism and the Organism (pp. 77–117). Almquist & Wiksell.
Reill, H. P. (2005). Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment. University of California Press.
Roe, S. A. (1981). Matter, Life, and Generation. Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. Cambridge University Press.
Roger, J. (1963/21971). Les Sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siecle: La génération des animaux de Descartes à l’ Encyclopédie. Armand Colin.
Roth, S. (2008). Kant und die Biologie seiner Zeit. In O. Höffe (Ed.), Immanuel Kant. Kritik der Urteilskraft (pp. 275–87). Akademie Verlag.
Sloan, P. R. (2002). Performing the Categories: Eighteenth-Century Generation Theory and the Biological Roots of Kant’s A Priori. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40(2), 229–53.
Steigerwald, J. (2006). Kant’s Concept of Natural Purpose and the Reflecting Power of Judgment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), 712–34.
Swammerdam, J. (1737/8). Lat. Johannis Swammerdammii Amstelaedamensis, Biblia Naturae sive Historia Insectorum, in classes certas redacta, nec non exemplis, et anatomico variorum animalculorum examine, aeneisque tabulis illustrate (Tomes I/II). Leydae: Isaacum Severinum, Balduinum Vander, Petrum Vander; Ndl. Bybel der Natuure. Historie der Insecten. Tot zeekere zoorten gebracht: door voorbeelden, ontleedkundige onderzoekingen van veelerhande kleine gediertens, als ook door kunstige kopere plaaten opgeheldert. II. Deelen. Leyden: Isaak Severinus, Boudewyn Vander, Pieter Vander.
Wolfe, C., & Nicoglou, A. (Eds). (2018). Sketches of the Conceptual History of Epigenesis. Springer (Special Issue: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences).
Wolff, C. F. (1759). Theoria generationis. Hendel.
Wolff, C. F. (1764/1759). Theorie von der Generation in zwei Abhandlungen erklärt und bewiesen, Theoria Generationis. Olms. (1966).
Zammito, J. H. (2003). “This Inscrutable Principle of an Original Organization”: Epigenesis and “Looseness of Fit” in Kant’s Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 73–109.
Zammito, J. H. (2006). Kant’s Early Views on Epigenesis. The Role of Maupertuis. In J. E. H. Smith (Ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 317–54). Cambridge University Press.
Zammito, J. H. (2007). Kant’s Persistent Ambivalence toward Epigenesis 1764–1790. In P. Huneman (Ed.), Understanding Purpose: Collected Essays on Kant and Philosophy of Biology (pp. 51–74). University of Rochester Press.
Zammito, J. H. (2016). Epigenesis in Kant: Recent Reconsiderations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Sciences, 58, 85–97.
Zumbach, C. (1984). The Transcendent Science. Kant’s Conception of Biological Methodology. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Ina Goy
Downloads
