Metodološki holizаm Аleksаndrа fon Humboltа: genezа, filozofski аspekti i relevаntnost zа rаzvoj sаvremene biologije

Abstract

Filozofski fakultet

Ova disertacija postulira dva glavna cilja istraživanja. Prvi cilj predstavlja analiza naturalističke teorije Aleksandra fon Humbolta i razmatranje njenog uticaja na razvoj savremenih bioloških teorija: Darvinove teorije evolucije, Vernadskijeve teorije o biosferi i Lavlokove Gaja teorije. Drugi cilj, pak, podrazumeva identifikaciju i analizu različitih epistemoloških i metodoloških pretpostavki koje su uslovile prihvatanje, te odbacivanje darvinističke ideje o evoluciji organizama. S obzirom na to, glavna teza ovog rada tvrdi da Humboltova teorija može doprineti boljem razumevanju razvoja pojedinih ideja savremene biologije: 1) ideje o prirodi kao holističkom sistemu; 2) ideje o evoluciji organizama i 3) ideje o dinamičnoj prirodi koja se ogleda kroz interaktivan odnos između organizama i njihovog okruženja. Analiza i odbrana ove teze su sprovedene kroz četiri poglavlja u kojima se, nakon predstavljanja Humboltove teorije, analizira njen uticaj na razvoj Darvinove, Vernadskijeve i Lavlokove teorije. Kako se u literaturi može uočiti nedostatak detaljnog razmatranja Humboltove naturalističke teorije, ova disertacija započinje upravo ovakvim razmatranjem. U prvom poglavlju analiziram Humboltovu naturalističku teoriju koja predstavlja holističko stanovište o prirodi kao harmoničnoj celini međusobno povezanih prirodnih fenomena, a koja je bazirana na Kantovom učenju o granicama mogućeg saznanja. U skladu sa ovim učenjem, Humbolt formuliše pretpostavku o postojanju epistemoloških i metodoloških granica mogućeg saznanja. S obzirom na to, Humboltovo stanovište nazivam metodološkim holizmom – naturalističkom teorijom koja je utemeljena na eksperimentalnom, ali ograničenom metodu racionalnog empirizma. Dalje istraživanje u radu se fokusira na filozofsko i naučno razmatranje fenomena evolucije organizama i njihovog odnosa sa okruženjem koje nastanju – prirodnom sredinom, ekosistemom, inertnom materijom. Kako se Darvinova teorija neretko smatra polaznom tačkom u razvoju savremene biologije, svoje istraživanje u drugom poglavlju započinjem filozofskom i istorijskom analizom, te upoređivanjem Humboltovog i Darvinovog evolucionog stanovišta. Razmatranje Humboltovih zapisa o holizmu prirode, fosilne evidencije i geografske distribucije vrsta me navodi na zaključak da je Humbolt evolucionista. Povrh toga, analiza u ovom poglavlju identifikuje i ističe značajne sličnosti između Humboltovog i Darvinovog istraživanja evolucije vrsta, što me navodi na zaključak da su Humboltove evolucione ideje uticale na stvaranje Darvinove teorije evolucije. Uprkos tome, zaključujem da Humbolt veruje da ne možemo imati saznanje o evoluciji organizama; ne možemo saznati u kom smeru se odvija ovakav prirodni proces. Humboltove razloge za ovaj radikalni stav možemo pronaći u usvajanju Kantovog učenja o granicama našeg mogućeg saznanja i tezi o mehaničkoj neobjašnjivosti organizama. Preostala dva poglavlja su posvećena ispitivanju uticaja Humboltovog metodološkog holizma na savremene teorije sistemske nauke o Zemlji. Ova završnica rada je utemeljena na razmatranju sledećeg pitanja: da li su Humboltove ideje o prirodi, evoluciji i dinamičnoj interakciji organske i neorganske prirode obnovljene u savremenoj Vernadskijevoj teoriji o biosferi i Lavlokovoj Gaja teoriji? Analiza koju sam sprovela u trećem i četvrtom poglavlju pokazuje da je odgovor na ovo pitanje pozitivan. Shodno tome, u preostalom delu rada pokazujem da između Humboltovog, Vernadskijevog i Lavlokovog stanovišta postoje značajne sličnosti: ovi mislioci usvajaju holističku koncepciju prirode, baziraju svoje istraživanje na eksperimentalnom metodu i prepoznaju dinamičnu interakciju organizama sa prirodnom sredinom unutar koje jedinke ispoljavaju sposobnost za modifikovanjem prirodnog okruženja. Konačno, ovi mislioci usvajaju stanovište o zajedničkoj evoluciji organizama i njihovog okruženja. Dok je Humbolt indicirao ovakvo shvatanje evolucije, Vernadski ga je formulisao u obliku pretpostavke o evoluciji Biosfere, dok je Lavlok to učinio u vidu kontroverzne hipoteze o evoluciji Gaje. Uprkos ovim sličnostima, neophodno je imati u vidu i razlike koje postoje između Humboltovog, Vernadskijevog i Lavkovog stanovišta. Ove razlike su obuhvaćene razmatranjem pitanja: šta je život? Kao što pokazujem u radu, Humbolt i Vernadski se ustručavaju od odgovora na ovo pitanje. Lavlok, pak, usvaja definiciju života formulisanu u skladu sa drugom zakonu termodinamike, i pokazuje nam da shvatanje evolucije i distribucije organizama u prirodi zavisi od definicije života koju usvajamo u određenoj teoriji. U skladu sa predstavljenom analizom, konačni zaključak ovog istraživanja je sledeći: Humboltove fundamentalne ideje o prirodi kao holističkom sistemu, zajedničkoj evoluciji i dinamičnoj interakciji organske i neorganske prirode bivaju obnovljene i dodatno razvijene u savremenim biološkim teorijama. Usvajanje određenih epistemoloških i metodoloških pretpostavki može značajno uticati na prihvatanje ili odbacivanje pojedinih filozofskih i naučnih ideja poput ideje o evoluciji organizama. Upravo ovde treba da započne svaka filozofska analiza; u filozofskoj analizi treba poći od fundamentalnih pretpostavki na kojima počiva celokupna formulacija filozofskog argumenta.

This dissertation postulates two main research objectives. The first objective is to analyse the naturalistic theory of Alexander von Humboldt, and to examine its influence on the development of modern biological theories: Darwin's theory of evolution, Vernadsky's theory of the biosphere, and Lovelock's Gaia theory. The second objective, however, is to identify and analyse distinct epistemological and methodological assumptions that influenced the acceptance or rejection of Darwinian idea of evolution of organisms. That being the case, the main thesis of this paper states that Humboldt’s theory can contribute to a better understanding of the development of ceratain ideas in modern biology: 1) the idea of nature as a holistic system; 2) the idea about evolution of organisms, and 3) the idea of dynamic nature that is reflected through interactive relation between organisms and their environment. The analysis and defense of this thesis cover four chapters that include the presentation and analysis of Humboldt’s theory, and its influence on the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution, Vernadsky’s theory of biosphere and Lovelock’s Gaia theory. Since contemporary literature lacks a detailed study of Humboldt’s naturalistic theory, this dissertation begins with such research. Thus, in the first chapter I analyse Humboldt’s naturalistic theory which represents a holistic conception of nature as harmonious whole of interconnected natural phenomena; as I argue, this theory is based on Kant's study of the limits of possible knowledge. Following Kant, Humboldt formulates fundamental assumption about epistemological and methodological limits of possible knowledge. I identiy Humboldt’s naturalistic position as methodological holism – a naturalistic theory grounded on experimental, yet limited method of rational empiricism. In the following sections of this paper I shift my focus to the philsophical and scientific research of the phenomenon of the evolution of organisms, and their relation with their natural environment, the so-called ecosystem or inert matter. As Darwin's theory is often considered the starting point of the development of modern biology, my analysis in the second chapter starts with philosophical and historical investigation, and correlation between Humboldt’s and Darwin’s stance about evolution. Following Humboldt’s claims about holism of nature, the fossil record, and geographical distribution of species, I conclude that Humboldt is an evolutionist. Further, my analysis identifies and emphasizes significant similarities between Humboldt’s and Darwin’s investigation of the evolution of species leading towards the conclusion that Humboldt’s evolutionary ideas influenced the formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, I conclude Humboldt believes we cannot acquire the knowledge about the evolution of organisms; we cannot uncover the precise direction of this natural process. I argue that Humboldt’s reasons for such radical stance can be found in Kant’s study about the limits of possible knowledge, and his thesis of mechanical inexplicability of organisms. The remaining two chapters question the influence of Humboldt’s methodological holism on contemporary theories of Earth systems science. The finalle of this paper investigates the following question: are Humboldt's ideas about nature, evolution, and dynamic interaction of organic and inorganic nature revived in contemporary Vernadsky's theory of the biosphere and Lovelock's Gaia theory? The analysis conducted in third and fourth chapter shows the answer to this question is positive. Accordingly, in the remaining part of this paper I show there are significant similarities between Humboldt's, Vernadsky's and Lovelock's standpoints: these scholars adopt a holistic conception of nature, and ground their research on the experimental method. Further, they recognize the dynamic interaction of organisms with distinct ecosystems – the interaction that unveils the ability of organic life to modify its environment. Finally, these scholars endorse the thesis about common evolution of organisms and their environment. Whilst Humboldt indicated such evolutionary view, Vernadsky explicitly formulated it in the form of hypothesis about the evolution of the Biosphere; Lovelock maintained it in the form of controversial hypothesis about the evolution of Gaia. Despite these similarities, however, it is necessary to note essential differences between Humboldt's, Vernadsky's and Lavlock's theory. These differences are encompassed with the following question: what is life? As I show, Humboldt and Vernadsky hesitate to provide the answer to this question. Nevertheless, Lovelock endorses a definition of life formulated in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, and shows that our understanding of evolution and distribution of organisms in nature ultimately depends on the selected definition of life. The analysis presented thorughout four chapters of this work leads me to the final conclusion: Humboldt's fundamental ideas about nature as a holistic system, common evolution of organisms and their environment, and dynamic interaction of organic and inorganic nature are revived and further developed in modern biological theories. Further, I note that fundamental epistemological and methodological assumptions can significantly influence the acceptance or rejection of certain philosophical and scientific ideas, e.g., the idea of evolution of organisms. And this is precisely the starting point of every philosophical analysis; one should start with evaluation of the fundamental assumptions of any philosophical argumentation.