Preformation vs. Epigenesis: Inspiration and Haunting Within and Outside Contemporary Philosophy of Biology

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Rivista di Estetica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.4000/ESTETICA.7088
Elena Casetta
{"title":"Preformation vs. Epigenesis: Inspiration and Haunting Within and Outside Contemporary Philosophy of Biology","authors":"Elena Casetta","doi":"10.4000/ESTETICA.7088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 17th and 18th centuries were the theatre of the fight between two main theories concerning the development of organisms: preformationism (or preformism) and epigeneticism (or epigenesis). According to the first, the formation of new features during organisms’ development can be seen as the result of a mere unfolding of features that were preformed in the sperm, the egg, or the zygote. According to epigeneticism, there is no pre-existing form, and development is a process where genuinely new characters emerge from formless matter. The debate involved naturalists, anatomists, physiologists, microscopists, medical doctors, and philosophers as well. Current developmental biology is, according to some, still inspired (or haunted) by the age-old controversy. The aim of this contribution is twofold. First, to discuss in which guise, if any, the old controversy is still shaping the contemporary debate in biology and philosophy of biology; and, second, to sketch Schelling’s position on that debate, suggesting that it may contain some still valuable philosophical insight.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":"74 1","pages":"119-138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7088","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The 17th and 18th centuries were the theatre of the fight between two main theories concerning the development of organisms: preformationism (or preformism) and epigeneticism (or epigenesis). According to the first, the formation of new features during organisms’ development can be seen as the result of a mere unfolding of features that were preformed in the sperm, the egg, or the zygote. According to epigeneticism, there is no pre-existing form, and development is a process where genuinely new characters emerge from formless matter. The debate involved naturalists, anatomists, physiologists, microscopists, medical doctors, and philosophers as well. Current developmental biology is, according to some, still inspired (or haunted) by the age-old controversy. The aim of this contribution is twofold. First, to discuss in which guise, if any, the old controversy is still shaping the contemporary debate in biology and philosophy of biology; and, second, to sketch Schelling’s position on that debate, suggesting that it may contain some still valuable philosophical insight.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预形成与后生:当代生物学哲学内外的启示与困扰
17世纪和18世纪是关于生物体发展的两种主要理论之间的斗争舞台:预形成论(或预形成论)和表观遗传学(或表观遗传学)。根据第一种观点,生物体发育过程中新特征的形成可以被视为精子、卵子或受精卵中预先形成的特征的展开结果。根据表观遗传学,不存在预先存在的形式,发展是一个从无形物质中产生真正新特征的过程。这场争论涉及博物学家、解剖学家、生理学家、显微镜学家、医生和哲学家。根据一些人的说法,目前的发育生物学仍然受到这一古老争议的启发(或困扰)。这一贡献的目的是双重的。首先,讨论旧的争论以何种形式(如果有的话)仍在塑造当代生物学和生物学哲学的争论;其次,勾勒出谢林对这场辩论的立场,表明它可能包含一些仍然有价值的哲学见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Origins Of Umberto Eco’s Semio-Philosophical Project Alive as You and Me Indexes: Cultural Nature and Natural Culture The Dog Schema The Notion of System in the Work of Umberto Eco: Summa, Structure, Code, Encyclopaedia and Rhizome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1