Why must Organized Beings be Judged in Teleological Terms?

On Kant’s Justification of the Teleological Judgment
  • Natalia LerussiEmail author


In the paper I discuss Kant’s justification for judging organized beings (or organisms) in teleological terms, through the concept of the “end” or “natural end”. Nowadays there are different answers to this question. For instance, from the perspective of what I call the “objective point of view”, organized beings have some objective characteristics that justify us having to comprehend them teleologically, while from that of what I call the “ordinary subjective viewpoint”, we must do so only on account of the discursive character of our understanding. I argue that both positions are, for different reasons that I outline, misleading, and I offer my own answer, a refined subjective position. By means of the distinction between the “essential character” of our understanding, on the one hand, and its “limits”, on the other, I hope to give a consistent answer to the question why organized beings must be judged teleologically and one that is well-supported in the sources.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Driesch, Hans (1924). “Kant und das Ganze”. Kantstudien. 29 B, II, pp. 365-376.Google Scholar
  2. Düsing, Klaus (1968). Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff. Kantstudien. Bonn: H. Bouvier u. Co. Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Ewing, Alfred Cyril (1924). Kant’s Treatment of Causality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Förster, Eckart (2008). “Von der Eigentümlichkeit unseres Verstandes in Ansehung der Urteilskraft (§§ 74–78)”. In Immanuel Kant. Kritik der Urteilskraft. hrsg. Otfried Höffe: 259–274. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Förster, Eckart (2012). The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy. A Systematic Reconstruction. Trans. by B. Bowman. Cambridge/London: The Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fugate, Courney D. (2014). The Teleology of Reason. A study of the Structure of Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Ginsborg, Hannah (2001). “Kant on Understanding Organisms as Natural Purposes”. In Kant and the Sciences hrsg. Watkins, Eric. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ginsborg, Hannah (2004). “Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability in Kant and Aristotle”. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 42. 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goy, Ina (2017). Kants Theorie der Biologie. Ein Kommentar. Eine Lesart. Eine historische Einordnung. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Kant, Immanuel (1902ss). Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin et alia: Hrsg. von der Königlich/ Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [I have used the following translations into English: Critique of Pure Reason (2000 [1998]). Trans. and Ed. by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press; Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics (2004 [1997]). Ed. and Trans. by Gary Hatfield. New York: Cambridge University Press; Critique of the Power of Judgment (2002). Ed. by Paul Guyer, Trans. by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. New York: Cambridge University Press; Lectures on Logic (1992). Ed. and Trans. by Michael Young. New York: Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
  11. Lebrun, Gérard (1970). Kant et la fin de la métaphysique. Essai sur la Critique de la faculté de jugar. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  12. Lerussi, Natalia (2011). “Sobre la justificación para introducir el concepto de ‚fin natural‘ (Naturzweck) en la investigación de la naturaleza según la Kritik der Urteilskraft”. Kant e-Print. International Journal. 6, 1, pp. 62-92.Google Scholar
  13. McLaughlin, Peter (1989). Kants Kritik der teleologischen Urteilskraft. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Pauen, Michael (1999). “Teleologie und Geschichte in der Kritik der Urteilskraft”. In Aufklärung und Interpretation hrsg. Heiner Klemme, Bernd Ludwig und andere. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  15. Peter, Joachim (1992). Das transzendentale Prinzip der Urteilskraft. Eine Untersuchung zur Funktion und Struktur der reflektierenden Urteilskraft bei Kant. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Rivera de Rosales, Jacinto (1998). Kant: La “Crítica del juicio teleológico” y la corporeidad del sujeto. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.Google Scholar
  17. Schrader, George (1953/1954). “The Status of Teleological Judgment in the Critical Philosophy”. Kantstudien. 45, pp. 204-235.Google Scholar
  18. Ungerer, Emil (1922). Die Teleologie Kants und ihre Bedeutung für die Logik der Biologie. Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  19. Zuckert, Rachel (2007). Kant on Beauty and Biology. An Interpretation of the Critique of Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentinien

Personalised recommendations