Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques, Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, Université Paris 1/CNRS/ENS, 13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France.
Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr;40(2):231-44. doi: 10.1007/s11084-010-9204-3. Epub 2010 Feb 17.
The first part of the paper offers philosophical landmarks on the general issue of defining life. Section 1 defends that the recognition of "life" has always been and remains primarily an intuitive process, for the scientist as for the layperson. However we should not expect, then, to be able to draw a definition from this original experience, because our cognitive apparatus has not been primarily designed for this. Section 2 is about definitions in general. Two kinds of definition should be carefully distinguished: lexical definitions (based upon current uses of a word), and stipulative or legislative definitions, which deliberately assign a meaning to a word, for the purpose of clarifying scientific or philosophical arguments. The present volume provides examples of these two kinds of definitions. Section 3 examines three traditional philosophical definitions of life, all of which have been elaborated prior to the emergence of biology as a specific scientific discipline: life as animation (Aristotle), life as mechanism, and life as organization (Kant). All three concepts constitute a common heritage that structures in depth a good deal of our cultural intuitions and vocabulary any time we try to think about "life". The present volume offers examples of these three concepts in contemporary scientific discourse. The second part of the paper proposes a synthesis of the major debates developed in this volume. Three major questions have been discussed. A first issue (Section 4) is whether we should define life or not, and why. Most authors are skeptical about the possibility of defining life in a strong way, although all admit that criteria are useful in contexts such as exobiology, artificial life and the origins of life. Section 5 examines the possible kinds of definitions of life presented in the volume. Those authors who have explicitly defended that a definition of life is needed, can be classified into two categories. The first category (or standard view) refers to two conditions: individual self-maintenance and the open-ended evolution of a collection of similar entities. The other category refuse to include reproduction and evolution, and take a sort of psychic view of the living. Section 6 examines the relationship between the question of the definition of life and that of the origins of life. There is a close parallel between the general conceptions of the origins of life and the definitions of life.
本文的第一部分提供了关于定义生命这一普遍问题的哲学里程碑。第 1 节认为,对于科学家和非专业人士来说,“生命”的识别一直并且仍然主要是一个直观的过程。然而,我们不应该期望能够从这种原始经验中得出一个定义,因为我们的认知器官并不是为此而设计的。第 2 节是关于一般定义的。应该仔细区分两种定义:词汇定义(基于一个词的当前用法)和规定性或立法定义,后者故意为一个词赋予一个意义,目的是澄清科学或哲学论点。本卷提供了这两种定义的例子。第 3 节考察了生命的三个传统哲学定义,这三个定义都是在生物学作为一门特定科学学科出现之前提出的:生命即活力(亚里士多德)、生命即机制、生命即组织(康德)。所有这三个概念构成了一个共同的遗产,深度结构了我们的许多文化直觉和词汇,每当我们试图思考“生命”时。本卷提供了这些概念在当代科学话语中的例子。本文的第二部分提出了对本卷中讨论的主要问题的综合。讨论了三个主要问题。第一个问题(第 4 节)是我们是否应该定义生命以及为什么要定义生命。尽管大多数作者对以强方式定义生命的可能性持怀疑态度,但他们都承认标准在天体生物学、人工生命和生命起源等方面是有用的。第 5 节考察了本卷中提出的生命可能的定义种类。那些明确认为需要生命定义的作者,可以分为两类。第一类(或标准观点)指的是两个条件:个体自我维持和类似实体集合的无限进化。另一类则拒绝包括繁殖和进化,并对生命采取一种心理观点。第 6 节考察了生命定义问题与生命起源问题之间的关系。生命起源的一般概念与生命的定义之间存在密切的平行关系。