David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 51 (2):101-140 (2003)
Living organisms are currently most often seen as complex dynamical systems that develop and evolve in relation to complex environments. Reflections on the meaning of the complex dynamical nature of living systems show an overwhelming multiplicity in approaches, descriptions, definitions and methodologies. Instead of sustaining an epistemic pluralism, which often functions as a philosophical armistice in which tolerance and so-called neutrality discharge proponents of the burden to clarify the sources and conditions of agreement and disagreement, this paper aims at analysing: (i) what has been Kant's original conceptualisation of living organisms as natural purposes; (ii) how the current perspectives are to be related to Kant's viewpoint; (iii) what are the main trends in current complexity thinking. One of the basic ideas is that the attention for structure and its epistemological consequences witness to a great extent of Kant's viewpoint, and that the idea of organisational stratification today constitutes a different breeding ground within which complexity issues are raised. The various approaches of complexity in biological systems are captured in terms of two different styles, universalism and (weak and strong) constructivism, between which hybrid forms exist.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Biology Evolutionary Biology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Werner Callebaut (2005). Again, What the Philosophy of Biology is Not. Acta Biotheoretica 53 (2):93-122.
James A. Marcum (2005). Metaphysical Presuppositions and Scientific Practices: Reductionism and Organicism in Cancer Research. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):31 – 45.
Remington J. Moll, Daniel Steel & Robert A. Montgomery (2016). AIC and the Challenge of Complexity: A Case Study From Ecology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 60:35-43.
Similar books and articles
Claus Emmeche (1997). Aspects of Complexity in Life and Science. Philosophica 59.
William P. Bechtel (2001). The Compatibility of Complex Systems and Reduction: A Case Analysis of Memory Research. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 11 (4):483-502.
Carlos Gershenson & Francis Heylighen (2004). How Can We Think the Complex? In [Book Chapter] (Unpublished).
Andreas Weber & Francisco J. Varela (2002). Life After Kant: Natural Purposes and the Autopoietic Foundations of Biological Individuality. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1 (2):97-125.
Gertrudis van De Vijver & Linda van Speybroeck (2006). Philosophy of Science Meets Biological Complexity: Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism Sandra D. Mitchell Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2003 (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology) (260 Pp; $19.99 Pbk; ISBN 0521520797). [REVIEW] Biological Theory 1 (1):104-106.
Philippe De Backer, Danny De Waele & Linda Van Speybroeck (2010). Ins and Outs of Systems Biology Vis-À-Vis Molecular Biology: Continuation or Clear Cut? Acta Biotheoretica 58 (1):15-49.
Richard M. Burian (1997). Comments on Complexity and Experimentation in Biology. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):291.
Gertrudis Van de Vijver, Linda Van Speybroeck, Dani De Waele, Filip Kolen & Helena De Preester (2005). Philosophy of Biology: Outline of a Transcendental Project. Acta Biotheoretica 53 (2):57-75.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #205,845 of 1,937,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #456,797 of 1,937,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?