Charles T. Wolfe

Table des matières Remerciements 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PREMIERE PARTIE LE VIVANT ET LA REVOLUTION SCIENTIFIQUE 7 ONTOLOGIE DU VIVANT OU BIOLOGIE ? LE CAS DE LA RÉVOLUTION SCIENTIFIQUE 8 Introduction 8 La vie et le vivant sont-ils des thèmes de controverse explicites dans la philosophie naturelle de l’âge classique ? 18 Machines de la nature, ferments et métaphysique chimique 28 Crisis, what crisis ? 42 Conclusion 45 LE MÉCANIQUE FACE AU VIVANT 49 Introduction 49 Que signifie : réduire l’homme (ou le vivant) à l’automate ? 51 Qu’est-ce qu’un vivant ? Un mécanisme élargi 56 Le vivant structuro-fonctionnel 64 Conclusion : l’automate affectif 70 UN MATÉRIALISME VITAL ? 73 Introduction : matérialisme et corps 73 Ontologie matérialiste de la Vie ou constitution progressive de la biologie ? 74 Un matérialisme vital 78 Conclusion 84 DEUXIEME PARTIE MATÉRIALISMES ET VIE 87 DÉTERMINISME MENTAL ET NATURALISATION DE L’ESPRIT, DE LOCKE A DIDEROT 88 Introduction 89 Le déterminisme à l’âge classique et son interprétation 89 L’Âme Matérielle et le Traité de la liberté de l’âme : un déterminisme cérébral 94 Locke : la détermination est une perfection 101 Collins : suspendre son vouloir, c’est encore vouloir 105 Diderot : les « causes propres à l’homme » 111 Conclusion 115 LA METTRIE : LA MÉDICALISATION DE LA MORALE ET L’APPROCHE MATÉRIALISTE DU CORPS 117 Introduction 117 Une morale médicale ? 117 La réduction médicale de la morale 120 L’épicurisme médical 125 Une éthique machinale 130 Conclusion 132 DES MOLÉCULES « INTELLIGENTES » A L’ORGANISATION ÉMERGENTE : LE DÉBAT MAUPERTUIS-DIDEROT 134 Introduction 134 Le contexte newtonien et leibnizien 137 L’argument de Maupertuis 139 La critique de Diderot 143 La réponse de Maupertuis 145 Conclusion : enjeux de la discussion 147 UNE BIOLOGIE CLANDESTINE ? LE PROJET D’UN SPINOZISME BIOLOGIQUE CHEZ DIDEROT 150 Introduction 150 Diderot et la biologie 152 Excursus : la naissance de la biologie 155 Spinozistes anciens et modernes 161 Spinozisme et spinosisme 166 Conclusion 168 TROISIEME PARTIE VITALISME 170 ORGANISATION OU ORGANISME ? L’INDIVIDUATION ORGANIQUE SELON LE VITALISME MONTPELLIÉRAIN 171 Introduction : pour introduire au vitalisme de Montpellier 171 Machine et organisation 174 Le concept vitaliste d’organisation, entre Vie et vies 179 Quelle individualité organique ? 186 Organisation ou organisme 190 Conclusion 197 LES ANALOGIES NEWTONIENNES DANS LES SCIENCES DE LA VIE AU XVIIIE SIÈCLE : VITALISME ET PROCÉDÉS EXPLICATIFS PROVISOIREMENT INEXPLICABLES 200 Introduction 200 Le newtonianisme médical littéral 206 Les transpositions non-littérales de la méthode newtonienne : Buffon, Maupertuis et Hartley 212 Haller : une physiologie de « noms d’attente » 216 Le vitalisme du XVIIIe siècle, un « positivisme prudent » plutôt qu’une « métaphysique impénitente » 220 L’antimathématisme de Mandeville et de Diderot 233 Conclusion 240 VITALISME ET VIVISECTION : APPROCHES VITALISTES DE L’EXPÉRIMENTATION ANIMALE 245 Introduction 245 Considérations préliminaires sur le XVIIe siècle 248 L’École de Montpellier 251 Ménuret de Chambaud 255 Un intermezzo sur Diderot 260 Fouquet et Bordeu contre Haller 263 Conclusion 267 LE CHARME DISCRET DU VITALISME SANS MÉTAPHYSIQUE, XVIIIe - XXe SIÈCLES 272 Introduction 272 Vitalisme substantiel et vitalisme fonctionnel 274 Vitalisme et biologie 279 Conclusion 283 QUATRIEME PARTIE ORGANISME ET BIOPHILOSOPHIE 285 L’ORGANISME : CONCEPT HYBRIDE ET POLÉMIQUE 285 Introduction 286 L’organisme, un hybride 287 L’organisme comme individualité 290 Organisme et organicisme 296 L’organisme vitaliste 301 Ontologie de l’organisme 303 Conclusion 305 LE RETOUR DU VITALISME : CANGUILHEM ET LE PROJET D’UNE BIOPHILOSOPHIE 307 Introduction 307 Un vitalisme passe-partout 308 L’organisme entre épistémologie et ontologie 312 Une métaphysique de l’oursin ? Bioexceptionalisme et biochauvinisme 313 Vitalisme versus mysticisme de la chair 317 Conclusion 323 HOLISME, ORGANICISME ET BIOCHAUVINISME 327 Introduction : organicismes forts et faibles 327 Le holisme et l’organicisme plurivoques 329 Deux remarques critiques au sujet de deux périls étrangement connexes de la théorie holiste-organiciste 333 Holisme, biochauvinisme et subjectivité 337 Conclusion 341 CONCLUSION : LA PHILOSOPHIE DE LA BIOLOGIE AVANT LA BIOLOGIE 345 Bibliographie 350 Index 404

Intellectual history still quite commonly distinguishes between the episode we know as the Scientific Revolution, and its successor era, the Enlightenment, in terms of the calculatory and quantifying zeal of the former—the age of mechanics—and the rather scientifically lackadaisical mood of the latter, more concerned with freedom, public space and aesthetics. It is possible to challenge this distinction in a variety of ways, but the approach I examine here, in which the focus on an emerging scientific field or cluster of disciplines—the ‘life sciences’, particularly natural history, medicine, and physiology —is, not Romantically anti-scientific, but resolutely anti-mathematical. Diderot bluntly states, in his Thoughts on the interpretation of nature, that “We are on the verge of a great revolution in the sciences. Given the taste people seem to have for morals, belles-lettres, the history of nature and experimental physics, I dare say that before a hundred years, there will not be more than three great geometricians remaining in Europe. The science will stop short where the Bernoullis, the Eulers, the Maupertuis, the Clairauts, the Fontaines and the D’Alemberts will have left it.... We will not go beyond.” Similarly, Buffon in the first discourse of his Histoire naturelle speaks of the “over-reliance on mathematical sciences,” given that mathematical truths are merely “definitional” and “demonstrative,” and thereby “abstract, intellectual and arbitrary.” Earlier in the Thoughts, Diderot judges “the thing of the mathematician” to have “as little existence in nature as that of the gambler.” Significantly, this attitude—taken by great scientists who also translated Newton or wrote careful papers on probability theory, as well as by others such as Mandeville—participates in the effort to conceptualize what we might call a new ontology for the emerging life sciences, very different from both the ‘iatromechanism’ and the ‘animism’ of earlier generations, which either failed to account for specifically living, goal-directed features of organisms, or accounted for them in supernaturalistic terms by appealing to an ‘anima’ as explanatory principle. Anti-mathematicism here is then a key component of a naturalistic, open-ended project to give a successful reductionist model of explanation in ‘natural history’, a model which is no more vitalist than it is materialist—but which is fairly far removed from early modern mechanism.

We argue for a conception of ‘philosophy of biology before biology’ which is neither internalist study of biological doctrines, nor a reconstruction of the role philosophical concepts might have played in the constitution of biology as science, but rather a kind of interplay between metaphysical and empirical issues. This should have an impact both on our present understanding of philosophy of biology, given that it is necessarily conditioned by a very specific history and historiography, and on our understanding of how biology as a science of life became unified.

ABSTRACTMaterialism is the view that everything that is real is material or is the product of material processes. It tends to take either a ‘cosmological’ form, as a claim about the ultimate nature of the world, or a more specific ‘psychological’ form, detailing how mental processes are brain processes. I focus on the second, psychological or cerebral form of materialism. In the mid-to-late eighteenth century, the French materialist philosopher Denis Diderot was one of the first to notice that any self-respecting materialist had to address the question of the status and functional role of the brain, and its relation to our mental life. After this the topic grew stale, with knee-jerk reiterations of ‘psychophysical identity’ in the nineteenth-century, and equally rigid assertions of anti-materialism. In 1960s philosophy of mind, brain–mind materialism reemerged as ‘identity theory’, focusing on the identity between mental processes and cerebral processes. In contrast, Diderot’s cerebral materialism allows for a more culturally sedimented sense of the brain, which he described in his late Elements of Physiology as a ‘book – except it is a book which reads itself’. Diderot thus provides a lesson for materialism as it reflects on the status of the brain, science and culture.

Philosophy of biology before biology Edited by Cécilia Bognon-Küss & Charles T. Wolfe   Table of contents Cécilia Bognon-Küss & Charles T. Wolfe. Introduction 1. Cécilia Bognon-Küss & Charles T. Wolfe. The idea of “philosophy of biology before biology”: a methodological provocation Part I. FORM AND DEVELOPMENT 2. Stéphane Schmitt. Buffon’s theories of generation and the changing dialectics of molds and molecules 3. Phillip Sloan. Metaphysics and “Vital” Materialism: The Gabrielle Du Châtelet Circle and French Vitalism 4. John Zammito. The Philosophical Reception of C. F. Wolff’s Epigenesis in Germany, 1770-1790: Herder, Tetens and Kant Part II. ORGANISM & ORGANIZATION 5. François Duchesneau. Senebier and the Advent of General Physiology 6. Tobias Cheung. Organization and Process. Living Systems Between Inner and Outer Worlds: Cuvier, Hufeland, Cabanis. Part III. SYSTEMS 7. Georg Toepfer. Philosophy of Ecology Long Before Ecology: Kant’s Idea of an Organized System of Organized Beings 8. Ina Goy. "All is leaf". Goethe's plant philosophy and poetry 9. Snait Gissis. ‘Biology’, Lamarck, Lamarckisms POSTSCRIPTS 1. Lynn Nyhart. A Historical Proposal Around Prepositions 2. Philippe Huneman. Philosophy after Philosophy of Biology before Biology Cécilia Bognon-Küss and Charles T. Wolfe. Conclusion  

This is an introduction to a collection of articles on the conceptual history of epigenesis, from Aristotle to Harvey, Cavendish, Kant and Erasmus Darwin, moving into nineteenth-century biology with Wolff, Blumenbach and His, and onto the twentieth century and current issues, with Waddington and epigenetics. The purpose of the topical collection is to emphasize how epigenesis marks the point of intersection of a theory of biological development and a theory of active matter. We also wish to show that the concept of epigenesis existed prior to biological theorization and that it continues to permeate thinking about development in recent biological debates.

Vitalism was long viewed as the most grotesque view in biological theory: appeals to a mysterious life-force, Romantic insistence on the autonomy of life, or worse, a metaphysics of an entirely living universe. In the early twentieth century, attempts were made to present a revised, lighter version that was not weighted down by revisionary metaphysics: “organicism”. And mainstream philosophers of science criticized Driesch and Bergson’s “neovitalism” as a too-strong ontological commitment to the existence of certain entities or “forces”, over and above the system of causal relations studied by mechanistic science, rejecting the weaker form, organicism, as well. But there has been some significant scholarly “push-back” against this orthodox attitude, notably pointing to the 18th-century Montpellier vitalists to show that there are different historical forms of vitalism, including how they relate to mainstream scientific practice. Additionally, some trends in recent biology that run counter to genetic reductionism and the informational model of the gene present themselves as organicist. Here, we examine some cases of vitalism in the twentieth century and today, not just as a historical form but as a significant metaphysical and scientific model. We argue for vitalism’s conceptual originality without either reducing it to mainstream models of science or presenting it as an alternate model of science, by focusing on historical forms of vitalism, logical empiricist critiques thereof and the impact of synthetic biology on current theorizing of vitalism.

In this paper we examine aspects of Canguilhem’s philosophy of biology, concerning the knowledge of life and its consequences on science and vitalism. His concept of life stems from the idea of a living individual, endowed with creative subjectivity and norms, a Kantian view which “disconcerts logic”. In contrast, two different approaches ground naturalistic perspectives to explore the logic of life and the logic of the living individual in the 1970s. Although Canguilhem is closer to the second, there are divergences; for example, unlike them, he does not dismiss vitalism, often referring to it in his work and even at times describing himself as a vitalist. The reason may lie in their different views of science.

In this paper, we reflect on the connection between the notions of organism and organisation, with a specific interest in how this bears upon the issue of the reality of the organism. We do this by presenting the case of Buffon, who developed complex views about the relation between the notions of “organised” and “organic” matter. We argue that, contrary to what some interpreters have suggested, these notions are not orthogonal in his thought. Also, we argue that Buffon has a view in which organisation is not just ubiquitous, but basic and fundamental in nature, and hence also fully natural. We suggest that he can hold this view because of his anti-mathematicism. Buffon’s case is interesting, in our view, because he can regard organisation, and organisms, as perfectly natural, and can admit their reality without invoking problematic supernaturalist views, and because he allows organisation and the organismal to come in kinds and degrees. Thus, his view tries to do justice to two cautionary notes for the debate on the reality of the organism: the need for a commitment to a broadly naturalist perspective, and the need to acknowledge the interesting features of organisms through which we make sense of them.

ABSTRACT: GEORGES CANGUILHEM’S BIOPHILOSOPHY The eminent French biologist and historian of biology, François Jacob, once notoriously declared «On n’interroge plus la vie dans les laboratoires»: laboratory research no longer inquires into the notion of “Life”. Certain influential French philosophers of science of the mid‐century such as Georges Canguilhem would disagree, or at least seek to resist some of Jacob’s diagnosis. Not by imposing a different kind of research program in laboratories, but by an unusual combination of historical and philosophical inquiry into the foundations of the life sciences. Canguilhem speaks of «defending vitalist biology» and declares that Life cannot be grasped by logic. Is this history and philosophy of biology? Is it vitalism? It definitely is a different project from current philosophy of biology. One short‐lived term for it was “biophilosophy”. In this paper I explore the content of this term as it relates to the above questions.

The species of vitalism discussed here is a malleable construct, often with a poisonous reputation (but one which I want to rehabilitate), hovering in between the realms of the philosophy of biology, the history of medicine, and the scientific background of the Radical Enlightenment (case in point, the influence of vitalist medicine on Diderot). This is a more vital vitalism, or at least a more ‘biologistic,’ ‘embodied,’ medicalized vitalism. I distinguish between what I would call ‘substantival’ and ‘functional’ forms of vitalism, as applied to the eighteenth century. Substantival vitalism presupposes the existence of something like a (substantive) vital force which either plays a causal role in the natural world as studied by scientific means, or remains a kind of hovering, extra-causal entity. Functional vitalism tends to operate “post facto,” from the existence of living bodies to the desire to find explanatory models that will do justice to their uniquely ‘vital’ properties in a way that fully mechanistic models (such as Cartesian mechanism) cannot. I discuss some representative figures of the Montpellier school as being functional rather than substantival vitalists, particularly as regards the models of organic organization which they develop, and make some suggestions as to how these relate to the then-nascent science of biology.

There are books which, in the manner of a legal brief, seek to present a case by marshalling evidence around a central thesis or ‘claim’. Then there are books which are more like canvases: they assemble a wide variety of elements into a hitherto unknown or at least unseen pattern. Roy Porter’s thesis, which can be pieced together from a few half-sentences repeated at the beginning, middle and end of this book, is that there was a British Enlightenment—which was general enough that he dispenses with the need to address the question of ‘national enlightenments’, particularly the Scottish and the Irish, in this case—and that the British Enlightenment was the genuine source, or site, of the creation of ‘modernity’ or modern society, even “the birthplace of the modern” world, as his title indicates.

The eminent French biologist and historian of biology François Jacob once notoriously declared, “On n’interroge plus la vie dans les laboratoires” : 20-25): laboratory research no longer inquires into the notion of ‘Life’. In the mid-twentieth century, from the immediate post-war period to the late 1960s, French philosophers of science such as Georges Canguilhem, Raymond Ruyer and Gilbert Simondon returned to Jacob’s statement with an odd kind of pathos: they were determined to reverse course. Not by imposing a different kind of research program in laboratories, but by an unusual combination of historical and philosophical inquiry into the foundations of the life sciences – a project that at the time was termed ‘biophilosophy’, although this proved to be a short-lived term, as a kind of ‘alternate paradigm’ with respect to mainstream philosophy of biology, as Jean Gayon has noted. Even in as scholarly a work as La formation du concept de réflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Canguilhem speaks oddly of “defending vitalist biology,” and declares that “la vie déconcerte la logique.” Was all this historical and philosophical work merely a reassertion of some ‘magical’ vitalism? Indeed, Canguilhem credits Bergson’s ‘thinking of life’ as well. In order to answer this question we need to achieve some perspective on Canguilhem’s ‘vitalism’, notably with respect to its philosophical influences including a Bergsonian legacy, not least since Canguilhem was first an anti-vitalist, anti-Bergsonian, as Giuseppe Bianco has described, but then evolved into his own idiosyncratic brand of vitalism, in which life “is concept”. Did this make Canguilhem more or less of a ‘biophilosopher’? A vitalist like Bergson, or differently? These are the issues addressed in this paper

Vitalism, from its early modern to its Enlightenment forms (from Glisson and Willis to La Caze and Barthez), is notoriously opposed to intervention into the living sphere. Experiment, quantification, measurement are all ‘vivisectionist’, morally suspect and worse, they alter and warp the ‘life’ of the subject. They are good for studying corpses, not living individuals. This much is well known, and it has disqualified vitalist medicine from having a place in standard histories of medicine, until recent, post-Foucauldian maneuvers have sought to change the situation (but for unrelated, contextualist reasons). What is perhaps more suprising is that if we consider the emergence of medical ‘theory’ as a whole, from Harvey through to Locke and Sydenham, is the presence of a sustained anti-experimentalist line of argument, and this from the ‘empiricist’ (not Cartesian or Boerhaavian rationalist) side. It would seem then that ‘empiricks’, medical empiricists and other protagonists of an ‘embodied empiricism’ are not Boylean experimentalists who seek to map out Nature in its transparency, but deliberately archaic, Hippocratic observers of living bodies.

Intellectual history still quite commonly distinguishes between the episode we know as the Scientific Revolution, and its successor era, the Enlightenment, in terms of the calculatory and quantifying zeal of the former—the age of mechanics—and the rather scientifically lackadaisical mood of the latter, more concerned with freedom, public space and aesthetics. It is possible to challenge this distinction in a variety of ways, but the approach I examine here, in which the focus on an emerging scientific field or cluster of disciplines—the ‘life sciences’, particularly natural history, medicine, and physiology —is, not Romantically anti-scientific, but resolutely anti-mathematical. Diderot bluntly states, in his Thoughts on the interpretation of nature, that “We are on the verge of a great revolution in the sciences. Given the taste people seem to have for morals, belles-lettres, the history of nature and experimental physics, I dare say that before a hundred years, there will not be more than three great geometricians remaining in Europe. The science will stop short where the Bernoullis, the Eulers, the Maupertuis, the Clairauts, the Fontaines and the D’Alemberts will have left it.... We will not go beyond.” Similarly, Buffon in the first discourse of his Histoire naturelle speaks of the “over-reliance on mathematical sciences,” given that mathematical truths are merely “definitional” and “demonstrative,” and thereby “abstract, intellectual and arbitrary.” Earlier in the Thoughts, Diderot judges “the thing of the mathematician” to have “as little existence in nature as that of the gambler.” Significantly, this attitude—taken by great scientists who also translated Newton or wrote careful papers on probability theory, as well as by others such as Mandeville—participates in the effort to conceptualize what we might call a new ontology for the emerging life sciences, very different from both the ‘iatromechanism’ and the ‘animism’ of earlier generations, which either failed to account for specifically living, goal-directed features of organisms, or accounted for them in supernaturalistic terms by appealing to an ‘anima’ as explanatory principle. Anti-mathematicism here is then a key component of a naturalistic, open-ended project to give a successful reductionist model of explanation in ‘natural history’, a model which is no more vitalist than it is materialist—but which is fairly far removed from early modern mechanism.

0. Philippe Huneman and Charles T. Wolfe: Introduction 1. Tobias Cheung, “What is an ‘organism’? On the occurrence of a new term and its conceptual transformations 1680-1850” 2. Charles T. Wolfe, “Do organisms have an ontological status?” 3. John Symons, “The individuality of artifacts and organisms” 4. Thomas Pradeu, “What is an organism? An immunological answer” 5. Matteo Mossio & Alvaro Moreno, “Organisational closure in biological organisms” 6. Laura Nuño de la Rosa, “Becoming organisms. The organisation of development and the development of organisation” 7. Denis Walsh, “Two Neo-Darwinisms” 8. Philippe Huneman, “Assessing the prospects for a return of organisms in evolutionary biology” 9. Johannes Martens, “Organisms in evolution” 10. Susan Oyama, “Biologists behaving badly: Vitalism and the language of language”