통섭 비판-칸트의 ‘이성비판’의 관점에서

Abstract

Nowadays in the field of sociobiology, which is represented by E. Wilson, scientists are trying to reduce all the biological materials to physical materials. Sociobiologists apply “the naturalistic hypothesis” on the methods of “observation and calculation” unilaterally to all areas and exclude everything, which can not be comprehended by these methods, such as the meaning of freedom. This point of view can be characterized as the “scientific totalitarianism”(scientific holism), which is based on the unproven hypothesis, in which they believe anything can be reduced to the atomic elements.(methodological reductionism) It leads to the dogmatic metaphysics.(genetic determinism). In ‘critique of pure reason’, Kant concluded that the boundary of science should be limited to the world of observable phenomena. On Kant's ‘critical’ point of view, in the different way from Descartes' ‘separation’ of mind and body, mind can not be identified by scientific method as a substancial entity. However, on the contrary to naturalistic reductionist, we are aware that self-consciousness(apperceptio) of spirit accompanies all the perceptions(perceptio) and works with(ad) all the objective knowledge as a prerequisite of recognition. Today's quantum mechanics and philosophy of science show us that ‘thing in itself’ can not be fully grasped by scientific method and the human knowledge is limited. However, the human interests are beyond the limit of the theoretical knowledge. Kant's three criticisms show us that the ‘true consilience’ should be able to harmonize the theoretical interest with the freedom of conscience inevitably being pursued from the nature of the human spirit, and include the experience of the beauty and the sublime. The freedom of spirit can not be observed and calculated. Even though natural science can not recognize the freedom of spirit, but its existence can not be denied. The Ideas such as the Creator(God), the Freedom of Spirit can not be defined as ‘the constructive principles’ of scientific knowledge, which configure the contents of natural science. Nevertheless, these Ideas of pure reason are inevitably required to be pursued as ‘regulatory principles’ for the systematic unification of knowledge. Furthermore, the Ideas are practically ‘requsted’ in the inevitable interest of moral practice and may be granted in the active sense. And these Ideas are also regarded as being in harmony with the principle of teleological perspective in ‘reflective judgments’ of fine arts. In this regard, today's theory of ‘intelligent Design’ can be associated with the ‘regulative use’ of Ideas.