First, it suggests that the practices of life science sought, in the terms of Kant, to “minimize appeal to the supernatural” (Critique of Judgment, §81). Hence, “naturalization” was an endeavor to lower the metaphysical cost associated with the various theories of organism. Yet, at the same time, strictly deriving the living from the general laws of physics remained largely inconceivable—even for many materialists, who thus had to become “vital” materialists! In seeking to render the indispensable purposiveness of organisms immanent to nature, the philosophers and experimentalists of the eighteenth century had to insist both that (Leibnizian) entelechies had some measure of empirical indispensability—hence constructions like “physical” or “physiological” monads abounded in their conjectures— and, concomitantly, that nature had to be understood as more capacious and intrinsically dynamic (“vital”) than the mechanistic materialists of an earlier day presumed. At the close of the century, Kant stipulated that naturalists had to “think,” even if they could not prove, this intrinsic purposiveness, if “organism” were to be conceivable at all. While there are inevitably particular issues of disagreement—for instance, I side with Robert Richards on the question of the Blumenbach-Kant relation, and I think that Stahl was used by Leibniz, and continues to be used by Leibnizians like Duchesneau, as a straw man, thus misconstruing his enduring legacy—I learned a great deal from this magisterial work, as I have from all Duchesneau’s earlier contributions, and I regard him as one of the most indispensable formative influences in our field. J o h n H . Z a m m i t o Rice University

中文翻译：

---

Baumgarten 和 Kant on Metaphysics ed。考特尼 D. 富盖特和约翰海默斯

首先，它表明生命科学的实践寻求，用康德的话说，“最大限度地减少对超自然的吸引力”（判断力批判，第 81 节）。因此，“归化”是一种降低与各种有机体理论相关的形而上学成本的努力。然而，与此同时，从物理学的一般规律中严格地推导出生命在很大程度上仍然是不可想象的——即使对于许多唯物主义者来说也是如此，他们因此不得不成为“重要的”唯物主义者！18 世纪的哲学家和实验主义者试图将有机体的不可缺少的目的性赋予自然，他们必须坚持（莱布尼茨式的）entelechies 具有某种程度的经验不可或缺性——因此像“物理的”或“生理学的”单子这样的结构在他们的猜想——同时，与早先的机械唯物主义者所假设的相比，自然必须被理解为更加广阔和内在动态（“重要”）。在本世纪末，康德规定博物学家必须“思考”，即使他们无法证明这种内在的目的性，如果“有机体”是可想象的。虽然不可避免地存在一些特殊的分歧问题——例如，我在布鲁门巴赫-康德关系问题上支持罗伯特·理查兹，我认为斯塔尔被莱布尼茨利用，并且继续被像杜舍诺这样的莱布尼茨主义者用作稻草人，从而误解了他不朽的遗产——我从这部权威著作中学到了很多东西，就像我从杜舍诺早期的所有贡献中学到的一样，我认为他是我们领域中最不可或缺的形成影响者之一。约翰·H。