Sartenaer Olivier
Institut supérieur de Philosophie, Collège Mercier, Place du Cardinal Mercier 14, bte L3.06.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep;44(3):365-73. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.006. Epub 2013 May 20.
Emergentism is often misleadingly described as a monolithic "third way" between radical monism and pluralism. In the particular case of biology, for example, emergentism is perceived as a middle course between mechanicism and vitalism. In the present paper I propose to show that the conceptual landscape between monism and pluralism is more complex than this classical picture suggests. On the basis of two successive analyses-distinguishing three forms of tension between monism and pluralism and a distinction between derivational and functional reduction-I define three different versions of emergentism that can be considered as consistent middle courses between monism and pluralism (respectively theoretical, explanatory and causal emergence). I then emphasise the advantage of this taxonomy of the concepts of emergence by applying the results of my analysis to the historical controversy that pertains to the relationship between life and matter.
突现论常常被误导性地描述为激进一元论和多元论之间单一的“第三条道路”。例如，在生物学的特定案例中，突现论被视为机械论和活力论之间的中间路线。在本文中，我打算表明，一元论和多元论之间的概念格局比这种传统图景所显示的更为复杂。基于两次连续分析——区分一元论和多元论之间的三种张力形式以及推导还原和功能还原之间的区别——我定义了三种不同版本的突现论，它们可被视为一元论和多元论之间一致的中间路线（分别是理论突现、解释突现和因果突现）。然后，我通过将我的分析结果应用于与生命和物质之间关系相关的历史争论，强调了这种突现概念分类法的优势。
