Search
Submit an article RU
Kantian Journal

2024 Vol. 43. №2

Back to the list Download the article
ENG
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
RUS
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
Martynova S. A.

Nikolay Fyodorov’s Attempt to Link Aristotelian and Kantian Natural Teleology to the Project of Nature Regulation

Pages
123-151
organism purposiveness Aristotle Kant Nikolay Fyodorov virtue nature’s hospitality Russian cosmism regulation of meteoric process “the third reason” nervism “full-organness”

Abstract

The key thesis of natural teleology is that the products of nature should be judged by the goal of their existence or they should be explained as if such a goal existed. The prevailing view in the literature is that there are two main stages in the development of teleology in the framework of philosophical knowledge: the classicaland the non­classical. The isolation of these stages is based on the conviction that at a certain period of time finalism is supplanted by the notion of the goal engendered by the developing whole. I submit that we can talk about non­classical teleology in yet another sense.The interest of Aristotle and Kant in the foundations that warrant the existence of purpose of the products of nature is replaced by the attention to the fact that what exists in nature is not sufficiently purposive. The change of perspective is accompanied by a revision of the notions of what exactly purposiveness is, as well as by calls for practical activity in the course of which nature should be the subject of some tweaking. To bolster this hypothesis I turn to the teaching of Nikolay Fyodorov, the father of Russian cosmism, who puts the emergenceof teleological thought in the context of the project of nature regulation. I focus on three of the philosopher’s assertions which show that he departs from the canon of classical teleology to determine a new context of development of teleological thought. First, Fyodorov points to the destructive processes in the organism, namely towards disease and death, which make it impossibleto consider the organism to be  purposive. Second, the founder of Russian cosmism understands reason as the instrument that is capable of ridding nature of destructiveness. Thirdly and finally, the Russian philosopher maintains that an indispensable condition of human virtue and the attainment of happiness is the regulation of nature by the human being through prescribing for it an external goal as its own.


Full text

json#{"TEXT":"","TYPE":"HTML"}

Reference

Aristotle, 1957. On the Soul. In: Aristotle, 1957. On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On Breath. Translated by W. S. Hett. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, pp. 2-203.

Cooper, A., 2016. Nature’s Ultimate End: Hope and Culture in Kant’s Third Critique. Philosophica, 48(1), pp. 31-45.

Denis, L., 2000. Kant’s Conception of Duties Regarding Animals: Reconstruction and Reconsideration. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 405-423.

Dyadkovsky, I. E., 1836. Obshchaya terapiya, sochinennaya dlya rukovodstva slushatelej svoikh [General Therapy, Composed to Guide Its Trainees]. Moscow: V Universitetskoy Tipografii. (In Rus.)

Florensky, P. A, 2000. Organoprojection. In: P. A. Florensky, 2000. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 3. Moscow: Mysl’, pp. 402-422. (In Rus.)

Frolov, I. T., 2019. Determinizm i teleologiya [Determinism and Teleology]. Moscow: LIBROKOM.

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995a. The question of Brotherhood, or Kinship, of the Causes of Non-Brotherhood, Non-Kinship, i.e. Non-Peaceful State of the World and of the Means to Restore Kinship (A Note from Non-Scientists to Scientists, Spiritual and Secular, to Believers and Non-Believers). In: N.F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 1. Moscow: Progress, pp. 35-308. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995b. Supramoralism, or Universal Synthesis (i.e., Universal Unity). In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 1. Moscow: Progress, pp. 388-441. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995c. Three Reasons and the One Reason. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, p. 90. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995d. Falling Worlds and the Counter-Fallen Being. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 243-249. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995e. Horizontal Position and Vertical Position — Death and Life. In: N.F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 249-257. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995f. Parents and Revivalists. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 259-260. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995g. Superhumanity as Vice and as Virtue. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 135-136. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995h. Karazin as a Meteorourg, not a Meteorologist. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 260-264. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995i. Who Is Our Common Enemy, Unified, Everywhere and Always Inherent, Living in Us and Outside of Us, but Nevertheless only a Temporary Enemy? In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 239-240. (In Rus.)

Fyodorov, N. F., 1995j. Disarmament. How to Turn an Instrument of Destruction into an Instrument of Salvation. In: N. F. Fyodorov, 1995. Sobranie sochineniy v 4 tomakh [Collected Works in 4 Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Progress, pp. 239-240. (In Rus.)

Gacheva, A. G., 2019. Russkij kosmizm v ideyah i licah [Russian Cosmism in Ideas and Personalities]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt. (In Rus.)

Gadzhikurbanova, P. A. 2009. Aristotle and Stoics on the Nature of Virtue. In: R. G. Apressyan141*, ed. 2009. Philosofiya i etika: sbornik nauchnyh trudov: k 70-letiyu akademika A. A. Guseynova [Philosophy and Ethics: Collection of Scientific Works: To the 70th Anniversary of A. A. Guseynov]. Moscow: Alfa-M, pp. 171-183. (In Rus).

Gillroy, J. M., 1998. Kantian Ethics and Environmental Policy Argument: Autonomy, Ecosystem Integrity, and Our Duties to Nature. Ethics and the Environment, 3(2), pp. 131-155.

Ginsborg, H., 2006. Kant’s Biological Teleology and Its Philosophical Significance. In: G. Bird, ed. 2006. A Companion to Kant. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 455-469.

Hegel, G. W. F., 1970. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830). Part II: Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature. Edit­ed and translated by A. V. Miller with foreword by J. N. Findlay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hoffmanni, F., 1718. Medicina Rationalis Systematica. Halae Magdeburgicae: Prostat in Officina Rengeriana.

Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I., 2015. Critique of Practical Reason. Edited and translated by M. Gregor, translation revised by A. Reath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klemme, H. F., 2019. How is Moral Obligation Possible? Kant’s Principle of Autonomy in Historical Context. In: S. Bacin and O. Sensen, eds. The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10-28.

Martynova, S. A., 2023. On Aristotle’s Use of the Concept “Organon” in a Biological Context. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 17(1), pp. 166-176. (In Rus.)

Moreno, A. and Mossio, M., 2015. Biological Autonomy. Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.

Muhin, E. O., 1832. On Excitement. In: M. Lengossek, 1832. Nachal’nye osnovaniya fiziologii [Elementary Foundations of Physiology]. Moscow: Tip. S. Selivanovskogo, pp. 89-216. (In Rus.)

Nagel, T., 2012. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Neill, J., 2001. Meta-Ethics. In: D. Jamieson, ed. 2001. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163-176.

Onosov, A. A., 2020. Projective Anthropology: Technogenesis and Organosynthesis in the Philosophy of Cosmism. Solov’evskie Issledovaniya, 3(67), pp. 62-78. (In Rus).

Quarfood, M., 2006. Kant on Biological Teleology: Towards a Two-level Interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), pp. 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.09.007.

Schelling, F. W. J., 1997. System of Transcendental Idealism. Translated by P. Heath with an Introduction by M. Vater. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Sechenov, I. M., 1952. Elements of Thought. In: I. M. Sechenov, 1952. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Writings]. Volume 1: Physiology and Psychology. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing House, pp. 272-427. (In Rus.).

Sehon, S., 2016. Free Will and Action Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Svoboda, T., 2015. Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic. New York & London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Timothy, W. L., 2020. Anthropocene Alerts: Critical Theory of The Contemporary As Ecocritique. Candor, NY: Telos Press Publishing.

Varava, V. V., 2020. Philosophy of Death of N. F. Fyodorov: Tanatology, Immortology or Moral Challenge? Solov’evskie Issledovaniya, 2(66), pp. 166-177. (In Rus.)

Yevlampiev, I. I. and Kupriyanov, V. A. 2019. Teleologiya v klassicheskoy i neklassicheskoy filosofii [Teleology in Classical and Non-Classical Philosophy]. St. Petersburg: Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities Press. (In Rus).