Abstract
The chapter describes the basilar elements of Uexküll’s theory of life. Starting from the biologist’s position in the quarrel between vitalists and mechanists, it introduces some key points that accompany his whole reflection, as the concept of Bauplan (building-plan) and the problem of protoplasm. The chapter also proposes a periodization of Uexküll’s production according to the prevailing interests and topics: a first period dedicated to the physiology of marine animals, a second period in which the results of the physiological research coexist with emerging theoretical interests, a third period almost entirely devoted to theoretical biology, the definition of the Umwelt theory and the problem of the animal subjectivity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Following Aristotle’s interpretative thought, in the medieval times Thomas defines the teleology within the living matter as a causa immanens (Smith 1955: 212–215, 223).
- 2.
For Descartes reflex action is not only the paradigm for animal behavior, but also for every sort of behavior carried out by man in conditions of the suspended control of the rational soul (reactions to sudden strikes, sleepwalking, states of extreme passion etc.) (Brentari 2010: 592–594).
- 3.
On this aspect of the argument, one of the major attacks to vitalism was the experimental confutation of the Aristotelian theory of spontaneous generation, which had already appeared with the seventeenth century physician, entomologist and parasitologist Francesco Redi (1616–1698) and carried on by the biologist and physiologist Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729–1799) (Redi 1997; Spallanzani 1785).
- 4.
Cf. below, p. 53.
- 5.
Hermann Boerhaave (1668–1738). Dutch physician, chemist, theologist and philosopher. Taught at the University of Leiden. A versatile figure whose interests ranged from the re-editing of medical-philosophical texts from antiquity (like those of Aretaeus of Cappadocia) to the issue of contemporary Cartesian and Newtonian theories. From a theoretical point of view he paid great attention to the internal dynamics of the body (circulation, most of all), which he interpreted as primarily hydro-mechanic; see Mazzolini 1996: 164–167.
- 6.
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919). German physician and zoologist. Beginning from the 1870s he earned significant fame as an unwavering supporter of Darwinian theory, to which he provided a popular, instructional version. Among Haeckel’s students we also find Hans Driesch. However, Haeckel would later distance himself from Hans Driesch definitively.
- 7.
Uexküll’s criticism of Haeckel is even more severe than his attacks to Darwin are. Haeckel is described as a materialist and enemy of the teleological conception of nature, whose philosophical ideas – due precisely to their low level and ease of comprehension – would spread among the masses with detrimental effects: “This doctrine caused the mass of the people to lose the idea that the individual human being is a planned harmonious unit, which needs to be developed in all directions […] and man becomes a more or less random conglomeration of properties” (von Uexküll 1913: 132).
- 8.
Marie-Francois-Xavier Bichat (1771–1802). French surgeon, physiologist and anatomist. He can be placed among the supporters of Stahl and the adversaries of Boerhaave. Bichat is responsible for the definition of life as “the ensemble of functions that resist death” (Bichat 1829: 1), a definition based on the distinction between the “physical properties” and “vital properties” of organic tissue. According to him, the first are the qualities of matter that remain unmodified after death (extension, for example), while the second includes qualities that are autonomous and cannot be reduced to physical laws, such as contractility and sensibility. This distinction, which includes key features of vitalism and neovitalism, would be quite popular with future authors – from biologists such as Claude Bernard (cf. below, 52, n. 13) and Uexküll himself (cf. below, 69), to philosophers such as Schopenhauer and Plessner (see Schopenhauer 1969: 261–272; Plessner 1975: 112). For an introduction to this author see Rey 1997: 175–204.
- 9.
Georg Ernst Stahl (1659–1734). German physician and chemist. Staunch anti-Cartesian, he opposed the prevalently mechanist tendencies of the time by supporting a form of accentuated vitalism (of which he is considered one of the main representatives in modern times). His theory of living things is inspired by the clear dichotomy between spirit and matter, which he however intended to overcome: the soul is seen as an immaterial force capable of vivifying matter, which in itself is dead mechanism. As it is inaccessible to direct empirical enquiry, the soul becomes an object of study thanks to its effects on the body (among which we find the possible rising of pathologies).
- 10.
In confirmation of how varied and diversified this theoretical framework would be, a similar position was held by Pasteur (who certainly was no classic vitalist) about fermentation, which he saw as a vital process that was not reducible to the laws of inorganic chemistry (Pasteur 1858: 9).
- 11.
Abraham Trembley (1710–1784). Swiss zoologist, one of the initiators of the modern studies of regenerative physiology (Trembley 1744).
- 12.
Johannes Reinke (1849–1931). German botanist and philosopher, interested in cell theory, specifically in the formation of cytoplasm. His affinity to neovitalist conceptions is clear in his assumption for which immanent “systemic forces” of immaterial nature (which he calls “dominants”) were in action in organisms (Reinke 1911, 1919).
- 13.
Claude Bernard (1813–1878). French physiologist who dedicated the first part of his career to in-depth research on human metabolism (specifically the processes of glycemia and vasoconstriction). After 1850, he focused on the drafting of theoretical-philosophical works which dealt with methodological and epistemological issues (criticizing Comte’s positivism, among others). Bernard developed a holistic approach based on the concept of the internal environment, meaning the idea that every biological event – far from being isolated reactions to a single stimulus, or the effect of a single cause – is the result of the regulating activity of the entirety of the organism and the processes acting within it. For an introduction to this author see Holmes 1997: 281–286.
- 14.
The use of the term “neovitalism” is not universally accepted. It is commonly found in German, Italian and French authors, while it is less common in Anglo-Saxon contexts. It is not mentioned in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science (Heilbron et~al. 2003) nor in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Craig 1998); not considering the hylomorphic theories of antiquity and the Middle Ages as a part of vitalism, the Routledge Encyclopedia limits the use of this term to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thus avoiding the adoption of a new denomination (that of neovitalism) for the position of Driesch and other contemporary authors. The same approach is found in Cimino and Duchesneau 1997 .
- 15.
Barsanti writes in this regard: “It seems to me that the dwindling of mechanical philosophy […] can be seen as the effect of three distinct beliefs: (1) that the living nature is – as was said – much more “varied” and “complicated” than what mechanists postulated; (2) that when you look at them from the perspective of “mechanical philosophy” certain of its phenomena are so “extraordinary” and “abnormal”, so “unusual” and “surprising” […] that it is very doubtful that it can ever explain them; and finally (3) that not only those exceptional phenomena, but also the more ordinary phenomena of living nature must be radically reinterpreted” (Barsanti 1997: 67–68).
- 16.
Victor Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777). Swiss botanist, anatomist and physiologist. For a more in-depth introduction to this author, see Monti 1997: 41–66.
- 17.
Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1734–1794). German biologist, known for his absolute refusal to the preformist theories of the formation of the embryo and his support of the opposing concept of epigenetics (Wolff 1764). Wolff dedicated his final years to reflections on the forces active in the formation of the individual; one of his ideas of particular note (which he proposes in opposition to Stahl’s conception) suggests that the vis essentialis should not be identified in the least with the soul but rather would have a material nature (Wolff 1789).
- 18.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840). German anthropologist, anatomist and natural historian. Besides the biological notions mentioned here, which are intended to defend epigenesis from preformist theories, his fame is tied mainly to his role as founder of German scientific anthropology, and specifically the fact of having been one of the first to suggest the analogy between man and domesticated animal as a scientific hypothesis.
- 19.
Mildenberger correctly states: “The denial of the existence of an “objective world” makes [Uexküll] rely completely on subjectivistic elements from Kant’s philosophy and ignore Aristotle’s views, unlike the other vitalists” (Mildenberger 2007: 194). However, if it is important to note the lack of expressly Aristotelian notions (such as entelechy, which had been taken up by Driesch), Uexküll is set in a theoretical context of a teleological sort that indirectly descends from Aristotelian biology.
- 20.
This conception of the tasks of biology can be found in an earlier article from 1903 on the building-plan of the sea worm Sipunculus nudus: “Biology is the doctrine of the organization of living things. Organization implies the connection between several elements according to a unitary plan. Therefore, the task of biology is to identify the building-plan and elements of this construction in any living being” (von Uexküll 1903: 269). This passage is cited in Cheung 2004: 139–167, 140–141).
- 21.
von Uexküll 1905: 6. The statement of the autotelic characteristic of the living is accompanied in note by an unfortunately generic reference to Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. The idea of the “internal purposiveness” of the living thing sets out the distinction between purposiveness (Zweckmäßigkeit) and correspondence to a plan (Planmässigkeit), which is central in later works. Cf. below, 237; Kant 2000: 247; for the choice of “purposiveness” as translation of Zweckmässigkeit, see Kant 2000: xlviii.
- 22.
For a modern example, the use of the term Bauplan is also found in Gould, one of the main figures of the contemporary scientific critique of Darwinism – or better, of some of its features, such as gradualism and the overestimation of selection as a factor of change in genotypes (see Gould 2002: 251–341). But a concept similar to the building-plan was also referred to by Fodor when he speaks of the “return to the laws of form” as key to interpreting the evolutionary process which must be integrated with the natural selection perspective (see Fodor and Piattelli Palmarini 2010: 72–94).
- 23.
von Uexküll 1905: 9. As we shall see in the part dedicated to the reception of Uexküll’s ideas, a number of philosophers and scientists which were engaged with the concept of the building-plan understood it in the first sense, others (such as Merleau-Ponty) in the second.
- 24.
The position Uexküll takes towards the excessive use of Loeb’s concept of tropism is much more direct: “Until recently, everything was broken up into tropisms. […] Whether a fish swims upstream or downstream, that becomes a positive or negative reotropism. If a worm crawls for shelter in a corner, we were faced with a positive goniotropism or criptotropism. If we consider the general outcome of this terminology, apart from the appeal of creating “new” Greek words, it has not led to much” (von Uexküll 1905: 95).
- 25.
The complete exclusion of final causes in biology only occurred with the discovery of genetic code, that is to say an antecedent cause – at the same time structural and functional – capable of determining and guiding ontogenetic processes and growth. This, however, does not mean that the overall dynamic of these processes, together with the cogent impressions of finality that they provoke in the human observer, were explained beyond doubt.
- 26.
There is a certain ambiguity in the term Gegenstandkern, or at least the potential for misunderstanding. At first glance it seems to indicate the outcome of the synthetic activities of the consciousness (i.e., the nucleus of the object as phenomenon); what Uexküll wants to indicate with it instead is the physical seat of the unifying operation of data concerning the object. In later works this term would no longer be used.
- 27.
Besides the general discussion of the teleology of nature, Uexküll’s writings also reveal sporadic influences from Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment; cf. for example the mention of beauty in von Uexküll 1913: 139: “Beauty is the feeling of purposiveness in the environment”.
- 28.
Theodor Schwann (1810–1882). German physiologist, who possessed a solid philosophical education (his form of rationalism was heavily influenced by Descartes). Between 1829 and 1834 he was an assistant to Johannes Müller. However, in this time he did not adopt Müller’s vitalist approach, opting instead for mechanism. Together with Schleiden (cf. above, 24, n. 8) he dedicated himself to the study of cells and to the formulation of a comprehensive and unitary cytological theory. In 1939, perhaps due to the influence of his brother (the theologian Peter Schwann), Theodor left his scientific career and began studies into religion and spirituality, thus abandoning his early rationalism.
- 29.
Robert Remak (1815–1865). Jewish-German neurologist and zoologist, he studied nerve anatomy and the processes of cellular division.
- 30.
Karl Reichert (1811–1883). German physician and student of Müller, he primarily focused on histology and the evolutionary history of the brain.
- 31.
Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli (1817–1891). Swiss botanist, in 1844 together with Schleiden he founded the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Botanik. In cytology he is one of the main supporters of the micelle theory.
- 32.
Hugo von Mohl (1805–1872). German botanist, he studied the composition of cells and plant tissue. Most likely he is due credit for the coining of the term protoplasm, which he introduced into scientific debate in 1846.
- 33.
Max Johann Schultze (1825–1874). German anatomist and cytologist, one of the first to give a general definition to cells as a mass of protoplasm equipped with a nucleus.
- 34.
Ferdinand Cohn (1828–1898). Jewish-German biologist and botanist.
- 35.
Ernst Wilhelm von Brücke (1819–1892). German physician: despite being a student of Müller, he supported a form of hard mechanism.
- 36.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). English zoologist and paleontologist, his field of study ranged from marine invertebrates to vertebrate fossils. He is known mostly for his friendship with Darwin and for his scientific and journalistic commitment in support of the Darwinian idea of evolution by natural selection.
- 37.
Lionel Beale (1828–1906). English microscopist and physiologist, besides his staunch vitalism and the heated disputes with Darwin and Huxley he is known for having published numerous manuals on the use of the microscope.
- 38.
For an in-depth reconstruction of the different phases of Uexküll’s thought on the issue of protoplasm, including his review of the references of the cited authors, see Cheung 2004: 146, 148–155.
- 39.
Overall the article, which is dedicated to the concept of environment, falls into the second period of Uexküll’s production both chronologically and thematically; it will thus be analyzed in detail in the following chapter. For its relevance in terms of the debate on vitalism, however, some of its content will be discussed here.
- 40.
In amoebas, therefore, we find confirmation of the general law of the development of organisms which Uexküll summarizes thusly: “The framework [Gefüge] inhibits the building of frameworks [Gefügebildung]” (von Uexküll 1922: 146–147; cited in Cheung 2004: 147). If a definitive structure is missing, therefore, the process of formation of temporary structures does not undergo interruptions. With a slight variation – the term Struktur in the place of Gefüge – the same concept is expressed in von Uexküll 1909: 13.
- 41.
The attention Uexküll pays to the world of single-cell organisms is already seen in Leitfaden in das Studium der experimentellen Biologie der Wassertiere, where the difficulty in interpreting the functioning of protozoa in terms of the reflex theory are presented: “As protozoi are made of one cell only, they cannot possess organized reflex arcs” (von Uexküll 1905: 68). Therefore, it is quite consistent that in the first edition of Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere the problem of protoplasm is dealt with not by turning to the mechanics of reflexes, but by calling on teleological and unifying flows.
- 42.
Clearly, this does not exclude that the enquiry could regard the correspondence with a plan of the studied structures, their overall finality; according to Uexküll, tough, that finality should be considered as a given, without searching which forces or factors ultimately established them.
References
Barsanti, G. (1997). Les phenomenes «étranges et «paradoxaux aux origines de la première révolution biologique (1740–1810). In G. Cimino & F. Duchesneau (Eds.), Vitalism from Haller to the cell theory (pp. 67–82). Firenze: Olschki.
Beale, L. (1870). Protoplasm; or life, force, and matter. London: J. Churchill.
Bichat, M. F. X. (1829). Recherches physiologiques sur la vie et la mort. Paris: Brosson, Gabon et Cie.
Brentari, C. (2010). Dal riflesso al senso. Merleau-Ponty tra René Descartes e Jakob von Uexküll. Humanitas, 65(4), 591–601.
Cheung, T. (2004). From Protoplasm to Umwelt: Plans and the Technique of Nature in Jakob von Uexküll’s Theory of Organismic Order. Sign Systems Studies, 32(1/2), 139–167.
Cimino, G., & Duchesneau, F. (Eds.). (1997). Vitalism from Haller to the cell theory. Firenze: Olschki.
Craig, E. (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London/New York: Routledge.
De Ceglia, F. P. (2009). I fari di Halle. Georg Ernst Stahl, Friedrich Hoffmann e la medicina europea del primo Settecento. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Driesch, H. (1899). Die Lokalisation morphogenetischer Vorgänge. Ein Beweis vitalistischen Geschehens. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Dröscher, A. (2002). Edmund B. Wilson’s the cell and cell theory between 1896 and 1925. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 24, 357–389.
Dröscher, A. (2008). Biologia. Storia e concetti. Roma: Carocci.
Fodor, J., & Piattelli Palmarini, M. (2010). What Darwin got wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Geison, G. L. (1969). The protoplasmic theory of life and the vitalist mechanist debate. Isis, 60(3), 272–292.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Haeckel, E. (1869). Remarks on the protoplasm theory. The Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 10, 223–229.
Heilbron, J. L., et al. (Eds.). (2003). The Oxford companion to the history of modern science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, F. L. (1997). Claude Bernard and the vitalism of his time. In G. Cimino & F. Duchesneau (Eds.), Vitalism from Haller to the cell theory (pp. 281–286). Firenze: Olschki.
Huxley, T. H. (1853). The cell theory. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, 12, 221–243.
Huxley, T. H. (1869). On the physical basis of life. The Fortnightly Review, 5, 129–145.
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koffka, K. (1962). Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kühne, W. (1864). Untersuchungen über das Protoplasma und die Contractilität. Leipzig: Engelmann.
La Mettrie, J. O. (1996). Machine man and other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenz, K. (1977). Behind the mirror. A search for a natural history of human knowledge. London: Methuen & Co.
Mazzolini R. G. (1996). I lumi della ragione: dai sistemi medici all’organologia naturalistica. In Grmek M. D. (ed) (1993–1998) Storia del pensiero medico occidentale, vol 2E. Laterza, Roma/Bari, pp. 155–194
Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Animal machine. In J. Heilbron (Ed.), Oxford companion to the history of modern science (pp. 29–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967). The structure of behavior. Boston: Beacon.
Mildenberger, F. (2007). Umwelt als Vision Leben und Werk Jakob von Uexkülls (1866–1944). Stuttgart: Steiner.
Monti, M. T. (1997). Le dynamismes du corps et les forces du vivant dans la physiologie de Haller. In G. Cimino & F. Duchesneau (Eds.), Vitalism from Haller to the cell theory (pp. 41–66). Firenze: Olschki.
Pasteur L (1858) Mémoire sur la Fermentation Appelée Lactique. In: Œuvres complètes de Pasteur (1922), vol 1E. Masson, Paris, pp 3–13
Plessner, H. (1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Redi, F. (1997). Esperienze intorno alla generazione degl’insetti. Firenze: Giunti.
Reinke, J. (1911). Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie. Berlin: Gebrüder Paetel.
Reinke, J. (1919). Die schaffende Natur. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.
Rey, R. (1997). Bichat au carrefour du vitalisme. In G. Cimino & F. Duchesneau (Eds.), Vitalism from Haller to the cell theory (pp. 175–204). Firenze: Olschki.
Schopenhauer, A. (1969). The world as will and representation (Vol. 2). New York: Dover.
Smith, E. T. (1955). The vitalism of Hans Driesch. The Thomist, 18, 186–227.
Spallanzani, L. (1785). Expériences pour servir à l’histoire de la génération des animaux et des plantes. Genève: Barthelemi Chirol.
Trembley, A. (1744). Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire d’un genre de polypes d’eau douce. Leide: Verbeek.
von Uexküll, J. (1903). Studien über den Tonus i. Der biologische Bauplan von Sipunculus nudus. Zeitschrift für Biologie, 44, 269–344.
von Uexküll, J. (1905). Leitfaden in das Studium der experimentellen Biologie der Wassertiere. Wiesbaden: Bergmann.
von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.
von Uexküll, J. (1910). Die Umwelt. Die neue Rundschau, 21, 638–649.
von Uexküll, J. (1913). Bausteine zu einer biologischen Weltanschauung. Gesammelte Aufsätze. München: Bruckmann.
von Uexküll, J. (1915). Volk und Staat. Die neue Rundschau, 26(1), 53–66.
von Uexküll, J. (1919). Biologische Briefe an eine Dame. Deutsche Rundschau, 178:309–323; 179:132–148, 276–292, 451–468.
von Uexküll, J. (1920a). Staatsbiologie (Anatomie-Physiologie-Pathologie des Staates). Berlin: Gebrüder Paetel.
von Uexküll, J. (1920b). Theoretische Biologie. Berlin: Gebrüder Paetel.
von Uexküll, J. (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. 2. vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Berlin: Springer.
von Uexküll, J. (1922). Technische und mechanische Biologie. Ergebnisse der Physiologie, 20, 129–161.
von Uexküll, J. (1927). Definition des Lebens und des Organismus. In A. Bethe, G. von Bergmann, G. Embden, & A. Ellinger (Eds.), Handbuch der normalen und pathologischen Physiologie: Mit Berücksichtigung der experimentellen Pharmakologie (Vol. 1E, pp. 1–25). Berlin: Springer.
von Uexküll, J. (1928). Theoretische Biologie. 2. gänzlich neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Springer.
von Uexküll, J. (1933). Staatsbiologie: Anatomie-Physiologie-Pathologie des Staates. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt.
von Uexküll, J. (1985). Environment [Umwelt] and inner world of animals. In G. M. Burghardt (Ed.), Foundations of comparative ethology (pp. 222–245). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
von Uexküll, J. (2010). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans, with: A theory of meaning. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
von Uexküll, J., & von Uexküll, T. (1943). Die ewige Frage: Biologische Variationen über einen platonischen Dialog. Europäische Revue, 19(3), 126–147.
von Uexküll, J., & von Uexküll, T. (1944). Die ewige Frage: Biologische Variationen über einen platonischen Dialog. Hamburg: Marion von Schröder Verlag.
Wolff, C. F. (1764). Theorie von der Generation in zwo Abhandlungen erklärt und bewiesen. Berlin: Birnstiel.
Wolff, C. F. (1789). Von der eigentümlichen und wesentlichen Kraft der vegetabilischen, sowohl auch der animalischen Substanz. St Petersburg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brentari, C. (2015). The Basis of the Environmental Theory. In: Jakob von Uexküll. Biosemiotics, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9687-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9688-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)