Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history
This paper explores the similarities and differences between Kant and Fichte that are wound around a single, seemingly tangential subject: their arguments from biology. The most extensive discussions of biology in their work both came in the last decade of the eighteenth century, in Kant’s Critique...
Guardat en:
| Publicat a: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ref, |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Anglais |
| Publicat: |
Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte
2026
|
| Matèries: | |
| Accés en línia: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:ref_878 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:ref_878 https://doi.org/10.4000/ref.878 urn:doi:10.4000/ref.878 en https://journals.openedition.org/ref/878 2026-06-09T02:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/jqf3 All rights reserved Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/2258-014X URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ref Steinberg, Michael Fichte Kant Blumenbach Bildungstrieb biology This paper explores the similarities and differences between Kant and Fichte that are wound around a single, seemingly tangential subject: their arguments from biology. The most extensive discussions of biology in their work both came in the last decade of the eighteenth century, in Kant’s Critique of Judgment and in Fichte’s System of Ethics and Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo. On first reading the accounts appear extraordinarily similar. But the two philosophers begin to diverge as they move forward. Both invoke the notion of a formative drive that guides and impels self-organization, the Bildungstrieb that features prominently in the writing of Blumenbach. Kant, though, praises Blumenbach not so much for his ideas as for his caution in applying them, and interprets the drive as nothing more than the “ability of an organized body to take on … organization.” Fichte, on the other hand, characterizes the Bildungstrieb as “a drive to form or shape or to cultivate and ... a drive to allow oneself to be formed or shaped or cultivated.” There is a far more obvious way in which the two philosophers differ, though. Hardly anything seems less Kantian than a discussion of biology, and biological drives at that, in a System of Ethics. The moral law flies in the face of all inclination, and what are those inclinations but the promptings of our nature as physical organisms? From a Kantian perspective it is hard to see how biology could help us comprehend or comply with a law that is grounded in something utterly apart from our physical being. By incorporating it into his ethical treatise, though, Fichte seems to be moving in just that direction. |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| language |
Anglais |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
Fichte Kant Blumenbach Bildungstrieb biology |
| spellingShingle |
Fichte Kant Blumenbach Bildungstrieb biology Steinberg, Michael Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| description |
This paper explores the similarities and differences between Kant and Fichte that are wound around a single, seemingly tangential subject: their arguments from biology. The most extensive discussions of biology in their work both came in the last decade of the eighteenth century, in Kant’s Critique of Judgment and in Fichte’s System of Ethics and Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo. On first reading the accounts appear extraordinarily similar. But the two philosophers begin to diverge as they move forward. Both invoke the notion of a formative drive that guides and impels self-organization, the Bildungstrieb that features prominently in the writing of Blumenbach. Kant, though, praises Blumenbach not so much for his ideas as for his caution in applying them, and interprets the drive as nothing more than the “ability of an organized body to take on … organization.” Fichte, on the other hand, characterizes the Bildungstrieb as “a drive to form or shape or to cultivate and ... a drive to allow oneself to be formed or shaped or cultivated.” There is a far more obvious way in which the two philosophers differ, though. Hardly anything seems less Kantian than a discussion of biology, and biological drives at that, in a System of Ethics. The moral law flies in the face of all inclination, and what are those inclinations but the promptings of our nature as physical organisms? From a Kantian perspective it is hard to see how biology could help us comprehend or comply with a law that is grounded in something utterly apart from our physical being. By incorporating it into his ethical treatise, though, Fichte seems to be moving in just that direction. |
| author |
Steinberg, Michael |
| author_facet |
Steinberg, Michael |
| author_sort |
Steinberg, Michael |
| title |
Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| title_short |
Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| title_full |
Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| title_fullStr |
Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Biology and ontology: Kant, Fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| title_sort |
biology and ontology: kant, fichte, and the uses of natural history |
| publisher |
Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte |
| publishDate |
2026 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ref |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/ref.878 https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/ref/878 |
| _version_ |
1877291677090054144 |