Element contents
Kant and Teleology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 April 2025
Summary
Kant's mature teleological philosophy in the Critique of the Power of Judgment is predicated on innovations that address a set of unprecedented challenges arising from within critical philosophy. The challenges are (1) a threat of “transcendental chaos” between sensibility and understanding, emerging from the structure of critical epistemology; (2) a threat of “critical chaos” between determination and reflection, generated by Kant's response to that first threat. The innovations include (a) a transcendental conception of purposiveness, (b) a principle of nature's purposiveness based on that conception, (c) a power of judgment governed by that principle, (d) and so governed in an unusual (self-given and self-governing) way, (e) a view on which nature does make leaps. This Element argues that Kant's mature teleological philosophy – and a fortiori Kant's aesthetics and philosophy of biology – cannot be understood without a fully systematic account of these challenges and innovations, and it presents such an account.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108529617Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 08 May 2025
References
Allison, H. E. (2001). Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2003). “Kant’s Antinomy of Teleological Judgment.” In Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment: Critical Essays, edited by Guyer, Paul, 219–236. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Aristotle, (1985). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. 2 vols. Edited by Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, L. W. (1978). “On the Putative Apriority of Judgments of Taste.” In Essays on Kant and Hume, 167–170. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1991). Walter Benjamin: Gesammelte Schriften. 7 vols. Edited by Tiedemann, Rolf and Schweppenhäuser, Hermann. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1964). On the Origin of Species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. (2016). A Critical Overview of Biological Functions. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. (2019). What Biological Functions Are and Why They Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (1997). “Kant on Aesthetic and Biological Purposiveness.” In Reclaiming the History of Ethics: Essays for John Rawls, edited by Reath, Andrews, Herman, Barbara, and Korsgaard, Cristine, 329–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2001). “Kant on Understanding Organisms as Natural Purposes.” In Kant and the Sciences, edited by Watkins, Eric, 231–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2004). “Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability in Kant and Aristotle.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42(1): 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2006). “Thinking the Particular as Contained under the Universal.” In Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy, edited by Kukla, Rebecca, 35–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2015). The Normativity of Nature: Essays on Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goy, I. and Watkins, E. (2014). “Introduction.” In Kant’s Theory of Biology, edited by Goy, Ina and Watkins, Eric, 1–22. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, M. (1997). “Kant on the Illusion of a Systematic Unity of Knowledge.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 14(9): 1–28.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (1990). “Reason and Reflective Judgment: Kant on the Significance of Systematicity.” Noûs 24: 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1997). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (2000). “Editor’s Introduction.” In Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited by Guyer, Paul, xiii–lii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (2005). Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2020). “‘The Revised Method of Physico-theology’: Kant’s Reformed Teleology.” In Teleology: A History, edited by Jeffrey, K. McDonough, 186–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horstmann, R.-P. (1989). “Why Must There Be a Transcendental Deduction in Kant’s Critique of Judgment?” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions, edited by Förster, Eckart, 157–176. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1902–). Gesammelte Schriften. 29 vols. Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992). Lectures on Logic: The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Edited and translated by J. Michael Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason: The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Wood, Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment: The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Edited by Paul Guyer and translated by Paul Guyer and Matthews, Eric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp-Smith, N. (1992). A Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998). Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, J. (2011). “The Heyday of Teleology and Early Modern Philosophy.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXXV: 179–204.Google Scholar
McDonough, J. (2020). “Not Dead Yet: Teleology and the ‘Scientific Revolution.’” In Teleology: A History, edited by Jeffrey, K. McDonough, 150–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, P. (1990). Kant’s Critique of Teleology in Biological Explanation. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P. (2003). “Newtonian Biology and Kant’s Mechanistic Concept of Causality.” In Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited by Guyer, Paul, 209–217. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Messina, J. (2017). “Kant’s Necessitation Account of Laws and the Nature of Natures.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 131–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. and Schulte, P. (1991). “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense.” Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. (2018). “Teleological Theories of Mental Content.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/content-teleological.Google Scholar
Quarfood, M. (2004). Transcendental Idealism and the Organism. Stockholm Studies in Philosophy 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Schiller, F. (2003). “Kallias or Concerning Beauty: Letters to Gottfried Körner.” Translated by Stefan Bird-Pollan. In Classic and Romantic German Aesthetics, edited by Bernstein, Jay, 145–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (1969). The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. Garden City: Dover.Google Scholar
Teufel, T. (2011a). “Kant’s Non-teleological Conception of Purposiveness.” Kant-Studien 102(2): 232–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teufel, T. (2011b). “What Is the Problem of Teleology in Kant’s ‘Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment’?” SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 12(2): 198–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teufel, T. (2012). “What Does Kant Mean by ‘Power of Judgment’ in His Critique of the Power of Judgment?” Kantian Review 17(2): 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teufel, T. (2017). “Kant’s Transcendental Principle of Purposiveness and the ‘Maxim of the Lawfulness of Empirical Laws.’” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Massimi, Michela and Breitenbach, Angela, 108–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teufel, T. (2023). “Teleological Power of Judgment: Dialectic.” The Kantian Mind, edited by Baiasu, Sorin and Timmons, Marc, 260–271. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, E. (2009). “The Antinomy of Teleological Judgment.” Kant Yearbook 1: 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2004). Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C. (1728). Philosophia Rationalis Sive Logica [LL]. Praemittitur Discursus Praeliminaris De Philosophia in Genere. Volume 2.1 of Christian Wolff: Gesammelte Werke, 1962–. Edited by École, Jean, Arndt, Hans Werner, Corr, Charles Anthony, Hofmann, Joseph Ehrenfried, and Thoman, Marcel. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Zammito, J. (2006). “Teleology Then and Now: The Question of Kant’s Relevance for Contemporary Controversies over Function in Biology.” In Kantian Teleology and the Biological Sciences, edited by Steigerwald, Joan, 748–770. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37(4).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuckert, R. (2007). Kant on Beauty and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 6
- Cited by