Abstract
Among the peculiarities of Portmann’s biological philosophy is its contradictory reception. Though it was intended to reform a traditional biological discipline, morphology, in academic biology itself this original doctrine had surprisingly little impact. Instead, Portmann’s theoretical biology remains a focus of interest for philosophical disciplines like phenomenology and aesthetics and enjoys the attention of lay readers as well. Based on this internal tension, this chapter reflects on the theoretical status of a field that was ignored as a scientific reform but is still studied as an unacknowledged philosophy. Through discussion of the central concepts of “form” and “authentic phenomenon,” it demonstrates that these categories do not have a straightforwardly empirically objective, “scientific” character but, rather, require an approach more akin to philosophy. Portmann, however, did not want to address the philosophical aspects of his morphology as a philosopher and styled his project in a manner more empirical than its true character called for, which to a certain degree complicated the reception and influence of his original biological thought.
Chapter translated by Andrew G. Christensen.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
On the variable and metaphorical terminology of Portmann’s biological and anthropological writings, cf. Illies 1981: 113–114.
- 4.
A number of Portmann’s books (including Animal Forms and Patterns, The Animal as a Social Being, and a collection of essays, Biology and Spirit [Biologie und Geist]) were widely distributed in the 1960s thanks to licensed editions by German publishers Herder, Rowohlt, and Suhrkamp.
- 5.
This “melancholy perspective” can be seen, for example, in Koechlin 2004.
- 6.
While the first publications containing the foundational thoughts of Portmann’s theoretical biology appear shortly after the Second World War, we know from the archival research of M. Ritter that the first of the preserved notebooks containing handwritten materials for the lecture “Tiergestalt” dates from 1938–39 (Ritter 2000: 210).
- 7.
Only in the lowest, fully transparent organisms do the anatomical forms and their visual self-presentation coincide. With the appearance of opaque external boundary layers, active differentiation emerges, where manifest parts are constructed differently from hidden ones.
- 8.
In a certain sense, it can be said that Portmann renews morphology by incorporating ethology, which was rapidly developing at the time.
- 9.
- 10.
On the basis of the intensity of inwardness and self-manifestation it is possible to distinguish the “rank” of living beings – their place in the hierarchy of species. See, for example, Portmann 1960a: 86–101. Generally, higher-ranking beings are more intuitively comprehensible to us.
- 11.
For more on this, see section 4 below. According to Portmann, “totality” and “purposefulness” form the background against which we understand a living being, but they can never scientifically explain anything concrete – they cannot legitimately be used as a predicate. Hence also Portmann’s critique of biological vitalism and finalism (Portmann 1954: 180).
- 12.
Portmann acknowledges mutation, which neo-Darwinism regards as a productive moment of evolution, only to the degree it can be empirically verified, as in so-called micromutation. He regards the elevation of random mutation to the actual motor of evolution (without empirical evidence of the origin of new species) as a mythical element in modern natural science.
- 13.
- 14.
On this aspect of Portmann’s teaching, see especially Portmann 1957: 367–369, 1960b: 73–74, 1965c, 1970c. Note that Portmann regards extreme cases of organisms living entirely without contact with light (e.g. endoparasitic, cave-dwelling, and deep-sea species) as evolutionary modifications of forms that originated in illuminated environments.
- 15.
In 1963, the president of the German Zoological Society, A. Remane, somewhat officially criticized Portmann’s theories as “armchair metaphysical speculation” (according to Illies 1981: 28, 260, fn. 16). Not even his more favorably inclined colleagues could hide their puzzlement – the ethologist P. Leyhausen, for example, preserved (without wanting to identify with) another contemporary impression of Portmann’s work: “Gestaltmystik” (Lorenz & Leyhausen 1973: 391). On the reception of Portmann’s books translated to English in the 1960s, see Jaroš, Chap. 7, , in this volume.
- 16.
On interpretations of Portmann by M. Merleau-Ponty, H. Arendt a M. Grene, see Conte, Chap. 9, in this volume.
- 17.
- 18.
Cf. Portmann 1960a: 227: “morphology must consider phenomena that go beyond the current framework of functional understanding, which physiology generally – and with good reason – must define.”
- 19.
- 20.
See Portmann 1970c: 54: “In earlier discussions on the self-presentation of organisms I spoke of this aspect as a “function.” If this term is meant to designate a role in a self-preserving system, then self-presentation does not fall under this narrow concept of function.” Also: “Above all functionality in the service of preserving the individual and species, in the service of social acts or in the defense against enemies – in front of all these functions and first giving them meaning is basic existence as self-presentation” (op. cit. 57; italics mine). An identical formulation is found in Portmann 1965a: 236.
- 21.
- 22.
In Portmann’s time this was also a classic theme of philosophical anthropology, where, with the aid of such models, the difference between culture (understood principally as the prerogative of humans) and nature was delineated. On this, see Halák and Klouda 2018. Portmann, who acknowledged culture in the strict sense as the domain of humans only, nevertheless referred to the moment of freedom (non-necessity) that self-appearing introduces into the realm of nature (Portmann 1958a: 33).
- 23.
More on this see Wild, Chap. 8, in this volume.
- 24.
Cf. Portmann 1963c: 79: “Such an experience of the life of nature leads […] to the most hidden experience of the mysterious ground at work in everything around us and in ourselves. It is precisely through the strangeness of natural things, through insight into ways of life that are alien to us, that the stimulating effect of all forms of life, which go beyond all understanding, is greatly strengthened and the soul is fortified to confront the abyss within us.”
- 25.
For a detailed analysis of all aspects of Portmann’s opposition of the Ptolemaic and Copernican worldviews, see Tolone, Chap. 10, in this volume.
- 26.
See Portmann 1957: 370: “The distinction between authentic and inauthentic phenomenon in the first place separates two worlds of discovery and experience: the naïve aesthetic world of primary, sensory life and the theoretical world of human curiosity.”
- 27.
Objectivity or factuality is understood here in a relative sense: (relatively) objective knowledge is that which we do not need to further problematize in a given context and can continue to utilize without need of belaboring its assumptions.
- 28.
In Portmann’s bibliography we also find a short study on the history of entomology (Portmann 1930), and his intellectual autobiography (Portmann 1974) is an essentially historical work. What most attracted his attention in this area was the development of evolutionary theory, particularly the selectionist paradigm. Aside from studies on the context of the genesis of Darwin’s theory (Portmann 1965d, 1970f), he left behind several folders of notes and lecture materials related to the Darwinian centennial of 1959, which are held in the library archives at the University of Basel. M. Ritter presents in full an earlier fragment in which Portmann reflects on the aesthetic contexts that may have influenced the differential reception of evolutionary theory in Romance and Anglophone countries (Ritter 2000: 234). To this context also belong Portmann’s considerations on the linking of biology with economic and social interests and the exercise of power in the modern state, and the influence of these on biological research (e.g. Portmann 1970g).
- 29.
See Portmann 1963c: 82–83: “As technical complexity and the need for extensive specialization continue to increase, a large number of extremely specialized natural scientists will inevitably emerge. As a counterbalance to this development, it is important to support the other method – that of the naturalist, as we have called it; this task deserves the attention of all who participate in intellectual life. The main goal to be achieved, however, is to shape the natural scientist into a harmonious awareness of his full role: to increase our knowledge of natural things and to convey comprehensive, rich images of larger areas of nature.” There is a direct path from here to Portmann’s ideas on reforming the education system and culture in general, which mainly concerned a renewal of “aesthetic education” through the cultivation of sensory experience. To him, therefore, reform of the Western system of education is directly linked to the reform of biology. On this, see Portmann 1963d. Here we also see a reason behind Portmann’s unusual communication strategy: biology is in fact “a public matter.”
- 30.
See, for example, Bollnow 1992.
- 31.
See, for example, Portmann 1965b: 257: “So, too, morphology is not some initial stage of further biological work […] but one of the abiding, ever renewing tasks of life research” (italics mine).
- 32.
For a similar statement, cf. Portmann 1960a: 112. Both texts compare the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic and inauthentic phenomena to the problem of differentiating the conscious and unconscious components of the human psyche. It is worth noting the frankness with which Portmann was able to put at stake the empirical nature of the basis of his biology.
- 33.
Viewing the predominance of the intellectual dimension in Western civilization, Portmann often takes on the role of an advocate for sensory experience, though he emphasizes that he is concerned with “inspired” sensuality (Portmann 1963d: 247). Elsewhere he repeatedly points out that the aesthetic stance does not amount to irrational ravings (Portmann 1963c: 82, 1965a: 241).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
Cf. Portmann 1953: 226: “Living forms are original texts which speak to us in a foreign, distant language. Every generation must continually attempt to translate it into the expressions of their time; it is an undertaking which never ends, and which every new discovery must serve to improve.”
- 37.
A similar function is emphasized by B. Prévost (2013), who interprets the unaddressed appearance as “pre-subjective interiority.”
- 38.
Z. Neubauer also saw the presumed objectivity of Portmannian categories as a significant problem of his project (Neubauer 2008: 80–81). G. Kühne-Bertram discusses the category of Selbstdarstellung as a typical example of a “hermeneutic concept” in the framework of the Continental philosophical tradition, to which she assigns Portmann (Kühne-Bertram 2015: 74–79).
- 39.
His writings contain citations and references to works of philosophers such as M. Heidegger, W. Szilasi, O. Bollnow, and H. Plessner.
References
Boehm, G. (1978a). Einleitung. In H.-G. Gadamer & G. Boehm (Eds.), Seminar: Die Hermeneutik und die Wissenschaften (pp. 7–60). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Boehm, G. (1978b). Zur einer Hermeneutik des Bildes. In H.-G. Gadamer & G. Boehm (Eds.), Seminar: Die Hermeneutik und die Wissenschaften (pp. 444–471). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bollnow, O. (1992). Hermeneutische Philosophie. In K. Salamun (Ed.), Was ist Philosophie? Neuere Texte zu ihrem Selbstverständnis (pp. 92–107). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Halák, J., & Klouda, J. (2018). The Institution of Life in Gehlen and Merleau-Ponty: Searching for the common ground for the anthropological difference. Human Studies, 41(3), 371–394.
Illies, J. (1981). Adolf Portmann. Ein Biologe vor dem Geheimnis des Lebendigen. Herder: Freiburg/Basel/Wien.
Jaroš, F. (2010). Darwinismus a portmanismus: střetnutí nesouměřitelných biologických paradigmat? Teorie vědy/Theory of science, XXXII(/3), 301–318.
Koechlin, F. (2004, June 10). Don Quijote der Laboratorien. Die Wochenzeitung (Basel), 1–5.
Kugler, R. (1967). Philosophische Aspekte der Biologie Adolf Portmanns. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag.
Kühne-Bertram, G. (2015). Konzeptionen einer lebenshermeneutischen Theorie des Wissens. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
Lorenz, K., & Leyhausen, P. (1973). Antriebe tierischen und menschlichen Verhaltens. München: Piper.
Neubauer, Z. (2008). Esse obiectivum – esse intentionale. Auf dem Wege zur phänomenologischen Biologie. In D. Pleštil & W. Schad (Eds.), Naturwissenschaft heute im Ansatz Goethes (pp. 70–88). Stuttgart/Berlin: Johannes M. Mayer.
Portmann, A. (1930). Zwei Naturforscher. Jan Swammerdam und François Huber. Die Ernte, 11, 97–113.
Portmann, A. (1948). Einführung in die vergleichende Morphologie der Wirbeltiere. Basel: Schwabe.
Portmann, A. (1951). Über die Eigenart des biologischen Forschens. In E. Grassi & T. v. Uexküll (Eds.), Die Einheit unseres Wirklichkeitsbildes und die Grenzen der Einzelwissenschaften (pp. 69–93). A. Francke Verlag: Bern.
Portmann, A. (1953). Um ein neues Bild vom Organismus. In K. Piper (Ed.), Offener Horizont (pp. 213–226). München: Piper.
Portmann, A. (1954). Biologie auf neuen Wegen. In J. Moras & H. Paeschke (Eds.), Deutscher Geist zwischen gestern und morgen (pp. 172–188). Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
Portmann, A. (1957). Transparente und opake Gestaltung. In Rencontre/Encounter/Begegnung. Contributions à une psychologie humaine, dédiées au professeur F. J. J. Buytendijk (pp. 355–370). Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum.
Portmann, A. (1958a). Unterwegs zu einem neuen Bild vom Organismus. In Die Welt in neuer Sicht (pp. 24–46). München/Planegg: Otto Wilhelm Bart-Verlag.
Portmann, A. (1958b). Selbstdarstellung als Motiv der Lebendigen Formbildung. In Geist und Werk. Aus der Werkstatt unserer Autoren zum 75. Geburtstag von Dr. Daniel Brody (pp. 139–173). Zürich: Rhein-Verlag.
Portmann, A. (1959a). Zur Philosophie des Lebendigen. In F. Heinemann (Ed.), Die Philosophie im XX. Jahrhundert. Eine enzyklopädische Darstellung ihrer Geschichte, Disziplinen und Aufgaben (pp. 410–440). Stuttgart: Klett.
Portmann, A. (1959b). Die Welt der Augen. Die Ernte, 40, 131–159.
Portmann, A. (1960a). Neue Wege der Biologie. München: Piper.
Portmann, A. (1960b). Wandlungen unseres Bildes vom Lebendigen. In Wege zur neuen Wirklichkeit (pp. 53–74). Bern: Ilallwag.
Portmann, A. (1960c). Ptolemäer und Kopernikaner. Eine biologische Studie. Der Monat, 12, 23–30.
Portmann, A. (1963a). Biologie und Geist. Herder: Freiburg/Basel/Wien.
Portmann, A. (1963b). Die Biologie und das Phänomen des Geistigen. In A. Portmann (1963a), 13–45.
Portmann, A. (1963c). Der naturforschende Mensch. In A. Portmann (1963a), 65–83.
Portmann, A. (1963d). Biologisches zur ästhetischen Erziehung. In A. Portmann (1963a), 247–265.
Portmann, A. (1964). Tier als soziales Wesen. Herder: Freiburg/Basel/Wien.
Portmann, A. (1965a). Die Tiergestalt. Herder: Freiburg/Basel/Wien.
Portmann, A. (1965b). Die neue Auffassung vom Organismus. In H. W. Bähr (Ed.), Die Naturwissenschaft heute (pp. 255–259). Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Portmann, A. (1965c). Erleuchtung und Erscheinung im Lebendigen. In A. Portmann (Ed.), Aufbruch der Lebensforschung (pp. 33–57). Zürich: Rhein-Verlag.
Portmann, A. (1965d). Die Idee der Evolution als Schicksal von Charles Darwin. Eranos-Jahrbuch, 33, 365–403.
Portmann, A. (1970a). Entläßt die Natur den Menschen? Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Biologie und Anthropologie. Zürich: Ex Libris.
Portmann A. (1970b). Neue Fronten der biologischen Arbeit. In A. Portmann (1970a), 13–28.
Portmann, A. (1970c). Die Erscheinung der lebendigen Gestalten im Lichtfelde. In A. Portmann (1970a), 40–57.
Portmann, A. (1970d). Die Beurteilung der Erscheinung im Organischen. In A. Portmann (1970a), 58–75.
Portmann, A. (1970e). Das Problem des Lebendigen. In A. Portmann (1970a), 88–119.
Portmann, A. (1970f). Die entscheidende Wendung im Evolutionsdenken der Biologie. In A. Portmann (1970a), 168–185.
Portmann, A. (1970g). Die Biologie als technische Weltmacht. In A. Portmann (1970a), 364–379.
Portmann, A. (1974). An den Grenzen des Wissens. Vom Beitrag der Biologie zu einem neuen Weltbild. Wien/Düsseldorf: Econ.
Prévost, B. (2013). Interiorita, exteriorita, výraz podľa Adolfa Portmanna. Filozofia, 68, 82–90 [translated by A. Záthurecký from French original Intériotité, extériorité, expression. A partir d’Adolf Portmann].
Ritter, M. (2000). Die Biologie Adolf Portmanns in zeitgeschichtlichem Kontext. Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 100, 207–254.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klouda, J. (2021). The “New Morphology” Between Biology and Philosophy: The Hermeneutic Dimension of Portmann’s Thought. In: Jaroš, F., Klouda, J. (eds) Adolf Portmann. Biosemiotics, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67810-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67810-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67809-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67810-4
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)