I've been trying to understand whether on not Kant accepts the atomic model (that matter is composed of smallest pieces) based on his writings in Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.
-
1Hello : do you need to use the German 'Modell' rather than the English 'model' ? If you do, 'modell' should be capitalised to 'Modell'. But anyhow, welcome to PSE. Best - Geoffrey– Geoffrey Thomas ♦Commented Jan 27, 2023 at 14:08
-
1Maybe "Das ist Wunderschön"?– J DCommented Jan 27, 2023 at 14:28
-
2Nothing good. "In the Metaphysical Foundations the aether clearly has a merely hypothetical status. To be sure, Kant appears to be convinced of its existence, and he accordingly vigorously opposes a natural philosophy based on atoms and the void. Yet he also firmly asserts that it is not possible to rule out such an atomistic philosophy a priori". Friedman, Kant and Exact Sciences, p. 217. Later (in the so-called Transition manuscript of 1799) he changed his mind for the worse and attempted to deduce aether and rule out atomism even a priori, ibid. p. 221.– ConifoldCommented Jan 27, 2023 at 15:32
-
@Conifold - Yeah that is interesting, because a lot of old philosophy that could not be informed by the latest advances in science can be regarded as "obsolete". Less to read hahaha– FrankCommented Jan 27, 2023 at 20:15
-
Kant's Second Antinomy deals precisely with atomism. Antinomies are basically contradictions between rational phenomena that appear to be true simultaneously, while reason would be illusory (Transcendental Dialectic). The second antinomy presents the contradiction between the rational certainty that there must be an indivisible (the atom), and the notion that tells that parts are always wholes that can also be divided in parts recursively.– RodolfoAPCommented Jan 28, 2023 at 5:34
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Kant isn't an atomist. He has a dynamic theory of matter whereby matter is constituted by central forces. It's elaborated in the Dynamics chapter of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science.
Kant however, as Michael Friedman notes in his Kant and the Exact Sciences, never asserts that it is provable a priori in any way that atomism is false. It is a matter of strictly empirical research for him. Kant just doesn't subscribe to the atomistic theory which derives properties of macroscopic objects (their inpenetrability) by previously assuming they're made out of atoms. Kant explains the inpenetrability by another means. However, apparently in the opus postumum he changed (according to Friedman) his mind and thought he could derive the unplausibility of atomism (which isn't necessarily nonsense - it just causes natural suspicion... the work remained unfinished so we cannot really be certain about the premises and the goal of the reasoning). Take this with a grain of salt, however, because scholars cannot really figure out what main purpose opus postumum serves.
Another place where Kant discusses atomism, or, strictly speaking, the subdivisibility of objects into their constituents ad infinitum, is the Second [mathematical] Antinomy. Here Kant speaks, however, of Leibniz's monadology and alternative views and not any scientific atomism (like that of Newton).