Advertisement

Was Canguilhem a Biochauvinist? Goldstein, Canguilhem and the Project of Biophilosophy

  • Charles T. WolfeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 120)

Abstract

Georges Canguilhem is known to have regretted, with some pathos, that life no longer serves as an orienting question in our scientific activity. He also frequently insisted on a kind of uniqueness of organisms and/or living bodies—their inherent normativity, their value-production and overall their inherent difference from mere machines. In addition, Canguilhem acknowledged a major debt to the German neurologist-theoretician Kurt Goldstein, author most famously of The Structure of the Organism in 1934; along with Merleau-Ponty, Canguilhem was the main figure who introduced the work of Goldstein and his ‘phenomenology of embodiment’ into France. In this paper, I inquire if we should view Canguilhem and Goldstein as ‘biochauvinists’, that is, as thinkers who consider that there is something inherently unique about biological entities as such, and if so, of what sort.

Keywords

Existential Dimension Philosophical Anthropology Mainstream Science Folk Intuition Epistemic Privilege 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Versions of this paper have been presented at the Workshop on The Normal and the Pathological, University of Warwick, September 2011; Canguilhem’s Philosophy of Life, KU Leuven, June 2012. I thank the organizers and audiences of those events, and Pierre-Olivier Méthot for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Barberousse, A., Morange, M., & Pradeu, T. (Eds.). (2009). Mapping the future of biology: Evolving concepts and theories. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (2007). Biological mechanisms: Organized to maintain autonomy. In F. Boogerd, F. J. Bruggeman, J.-H. S. Hofmeyr & H. V. Westerhoff (Eds.). Systems biology: Philosophical foundations (pp. 269–302). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (2010a). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. (2010b). A vitalist stopover on the way to a new materialism. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 47–69). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianco, G. (2013). At the origins of Georges Canguilhem’s ‘Vitalism.’ Against the Anthropology of Irritation. In S. Normandin & C. T. Wolfe (Eds.), Vitalism and the scientific image in post-enlightenment life science, 1800–2010 (pp. 243–267). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Canguilhem, G. (1965a). Aspects du vitalisme [1946–1947]. In La connaissance de la vie, revised edition (pp. 83–100). Paris: Vrin. (First published 1952).Google Scholar
  7. Canguilhem, G. (1965b). La connaissance de la vie, revised edition. Paris: Vrin. (First published 1952).Google Scholar
  8. Canguilhem, G. (1967). Mort de l’homme ou épuisement du Cogito? Critique, 242, 599–618.Google Scholar
  9. Canguilhem, G. (1972). Le Normal et le pathologique (3rd ed.). Paris: PUF. (First published 1943).Google Scholar
  10. Canguilhem, G. (1977). La formation du concept de réflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (2nd ed.). Paris: Vrin. (First published 1955).Google Scholar
  11. Canguilhem, G. (1992). Le Cerveau et la Pensée (1980). In E. Balibar, D. Lecourt, et al. (Eds.), Canguilhem, philosophe, historien des sciences (pp. 11–33). Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  12. Canguilhem, G. (2002a). Puissance et limites de la rationalité en médecine (1978). Études d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences concernant les vivants et la vie (pp. 392–411). Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  13. Canguilhem, G. (2002b). Le problème des régulations dans l’organisme et la société. In É. Canguilhem (Ed.), sur la médecine (pp. 101–125). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  14. Canguilhem, G. (2002c). Qu’est-ce que la psychologie? (1958). In É. Canguilhem (Ed.), d’Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences (pp. 365–381). Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  15. Canguilhem, G. (2008a). Knowledge of Life (P. Marrati & T. Meyers, Eds., S. Geroulanos & D. Ginsburg, Trans.). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Canguilhem, G. (2008b). Health: Crude concept and philosophical question (T. Meyers & S. Geroulanos, La santé, concept vulgaire et question philosophique (1988), Trans.). Public Culture, 20(3), 467–477.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, A. (2008). Pressing the flesh: A tension in the study of the embodied embedded mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dailey, P. (2011). Children of promise: The bodies of Hadewijch of Brabant. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 41(2), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Issekutz Wolsky, M., & Wolsky, A. A. (1992). Bergson’s vitalism in the light of modern biology. In F. Burwick & P. Douglass (Eds.), The crisis in modernism. Bergson and the vitalist controversy (pp. 153–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Deleuze, G. (1981). Francis Bacon. Logique de la sensation. Paris: Éditions de la différence, réédition, Seuil, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Deleuze, G. (1993). Critique et clinique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  23. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1991). Qu’est-ce que la philosophie?. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  24. Di Paolo, E. (2009). Extended life. Topoi, 28, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Driesch, H. (1914). The History and theory of vitalism (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Elsasser, W. (1961). Quanta and the concept of organismic law. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1989). Introduction (1985). In Canguilhem, The Normal and the Pathological (C. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  28. Gayon, J. (2010). Vitalisme et philosophie de la biologie. Répha, 2, 7–18. Reprinted in P. Nouvel (Ed.), Repenser le vitalisme - Histoire et philosophie du vitalisme (2011). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  29. Gérard, M. (2010). Canguilhem, Erwin Straus et la phénoménologie: La question de l’organisme vivant. Bulletin d’analyse phénoménologique, VI(2), 118–145. http://popups.ulg.ac.be/bap.htm.
  30. Geroulanos, S. (2009). Beyond the normal and the pathological: Recent literature on Georges Canguilhem. Gesnerus, 66(2), 288–306.Google Scholar
  31. Giroux, E. (2010). Après Canguilhem: définir la santé et la maladie. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldstein, K. (1939/1995). The Organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man (A translation of Der Aufbau des Organismus, 1934). New York: American Book Company/Zone Books.Google Scholar
  33. Goldstein, K. (1959). Notes on the development of my concepts. Journal of Individual Psychology, 15, 5–14.Google Scholar
  34. Grene, M. (1968). Approaches to a philosophy of biology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Grene, M. (1974). The understanding of nature: Essays in philosophy of biology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grene, M. (2000). The philosophy of science of Georges Canguilhem: A transatlantic view. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 53(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hegel, G. W. F. (1970). Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences in outline (1817), vol. 2 (A. V. Miller, Philosophy of Nature, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, E. (1968). Materialism and monsters in the Rêve de D’Alembert. Diderot Studies, 10, 67–93.Google Scholar
  39. Hoffmann, F. (1749). Operum omnium physico-medicorum supplementum primum. Geneva: Fratres De Tournes.Google Scholar
  40. Jonas, H. (1966). The phenomenon of life. Towards a philosophical biology. New York: Harper & Row/Dell.Google Scholar
  41. Jonas, H. (1992). Philosophische Untersuchungen und metaphysische Vermutungen. Frankfurt am Main: Insel.Google Scholar
  42. Kant, I. (1755). Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels. English edition: Kant, I. (1755). Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kant, I. (1987). Critique of Judgment (1790) (W. Pluhar, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  44. Kass, L. R. (1995). Appreciating the phenomenon of life. Hastings Center Report, 25(7), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leibniz, G. W. (1969). Opuscules philosophiques choisis (P. Schrecker, Trans.). Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  46. Machery, E. (2012). Why I stopped worrying about the definition of life… and why you should as well. Synthese, 185, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  48. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  49. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The Structure of Behaviour (A.L. Fisher, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Méthot, P.-O. (2013). On the genealogy of concepts and experimental practices: Rethinking Georges Canguilhem’s historical epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moreno, A., & Mossio, M. (2015). Biological autonomy. A philosophical and theoretical enquiry. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  52. Mossio, M., & Moreno, A. (2010). Organisational closure in biological organisms. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 32, 269–288.Google Scholar
  53. Normandin, S., & Wolfe, C. T. (Eds.). (2013). Vitalism and the scientific image in post-enlightenment life science, 1800–2010. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Novalis (1987). Vorarbeiten (1798), in Werke, Tagebücher und Briefe, ed. H.-J. Mähl and R. Samuel, 3 vols., vol. 2: Das philosophisch-theoretische Werk, Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  55. Oyama, S. (2010). Biologists behaving badly: Vitalism and the language of language. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 32, 401–423.Google Scholar
  56. Perret, N. (2012). A Symmetrical approach to causality in biology. Philosophia Scientiæ, 16(3), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peterson, E. L. (2012). ‘Neither camp will have me’: C. Lloyd Morgan, Joseph Needham, J. H. Woodger, and the early-20th century attempt to devitalize holism. In Presentation at conference on Hasard, holisme et réductionnisme dans les sciences de la vie, Paris, ENS, Centre Cavaillès (May 2012).Google Scholar
  58. Peterson, E. L. (2013). The conquest of vitalism or the eclipse of organicism? The 1930s Cambridge organiser project and the social network of mid-twentieth century biology. British Journal for the History of Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  59. Ruyer, R. (1946). Éléments de psycho-biologie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  60. Ruyer, R. (1952). Néo-finalisme. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  61. Schaeffer, J.-M. (2007). La fin de l’exception humaine. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  62. Sholl, J. (2012). The knowledge of life in Canguilhem’s critical naturalism. Pli, 23, 107–127.Google Scholar
  63. Sholl, J. ms. Problematizing a Phenomenology of Life: Goldstein, Merleau-Ponty and Canguilhem.Google Scholar
  64. Simeonov, P. L., Brezina, E. H., et al. (2012). Stepping beyond the Newtonian paradigm in biology. In P. L. Simeonov, L. S. Smith, & A. C. Ehresmann (Eds.), Integral biomathics (pp. 319–418). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Starobinski, J. (1956). L’idée d’organisme. Paris: Centre de Documentation Universitaire/Collège philosophique.Google Scholar
  66. Sutton, J., Tribble, E. B. (2011). Materialists are not merchants of vanishing: Commentary on David Hawkes, ‘Against Materialism in Literary Theory’. Early Modern Culture 9. http://emc.eserver.org/1-9/sutton_tribble.html.
  67. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Trnka, P. (2003). Subjectivity and values in medicine: The case of Canguilhem. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 28(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Varela, F., & Shear, J. (Eds.). (1999). The view from within. First person approaches to the study of consciousness. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  70. von Uexküll, J. (2010). A Foray into the worlds of animals and humans, with a theory of meaning (1934) (J. D. O’Neil, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  71. Weber, A., & Varela, F. J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wheeler, M. (2010). Mind, things and materiality. In L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind (pp. 29–37). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Publications.Google Scholar
  73. Wolfe, C. T. (2010). Do organisms have an ontological status? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 32(2–3), 195–232.Google Scholar
  74. Wolfe, C. T. (2011a). From substantival to functional vitalism and beyond, or from Stahlian animas to Canguilhemian attitudes. Eidos, 14, 212–235.Google Scholar
  75. Wolfe, C. T. (2011b). Vitalism. In M. Gargaud, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of astrobiology (pp. 1749–1750). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sarton Centre for History of Science, Department of Philosophy and Moral ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations