What do you think?
Rate this book
PROBLEMS OF LIFE An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientic Thought
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
- GenresBiologyPhilosophy
Hardcover
Published January 1, 1952
2 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
About the author
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy
40 books38 followersKarl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (September 19, 1901, Atzgersdorf near Vienna – June 12, 1972, Buffalo, New York) was an Austrian-born biologist known as one of the founders of general systems theory (GST). GST is an interdisciplinary practice that describes systems with interacting components, applicable to biology, cybernetics, and other fields. Bertalanffy proposed that the classical laws of thermodynamics applied to closed systems, but not necessarily to "open systems," such as living things. His mathematical model of an organism's growth over time, published in 1934, is still in use today.
Von Bertalanffy grew up in Austria and subsequently worked in Vienna, London, Canada and the USA.
Von Bertalanffy grew up in Austria and subsequently worked in Vienna, London, Canada and the USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 20, 2020
Von Bertalanffy builds concepts from biology in order to try and establish a structure for knowledge in biology. Essentially he is looking for epistemes from biology with which to base a philosophical approach to the development of scientific (biological) knowledge. He doesn't borrow an epistemic basis from other fields, like physics or philosophy but instead approaches the development of biology's own form, arguing that the complexity of biology, like that of other fields, is central to its own because the functional structures within biology are unique to biology. Although Von Bertalanffy writes in the 1950s, this book is still relevant today as to some degree he anticipates trends while not predicting how deeply biology would change its view of things using data science and molecular biology.
All in all this is a highly recommended book, not just on how to think about biology but also as an example of performing a kind of transcendental empiricism.
All in all this is a highly recommended book, not just on how to think about biology but also as an example of performing a kind of transcendental empiricism.
June 22, 2023
The author begins by pointing out that the mechanistic and vitalistic conceptions of life are wholly inadequate to the task. He offers instead, the organismic conception.
“… The latter is maintained in a state of continuous flux, a perpetual, breaking down and replacement of its building materials.” Page 17.“Organic structures are themselves, the expression of an order to process, and are only maintained in and by this process.”
“Primarily, organic processes are determined by the mutual interaction of the conditions present in the total system, by a dynamic order, as we may call it.” Page 17 “this is at the basis of organic, regular ability.”
“The organismic conception: “the conception of the system, as a whole, as opposed to the analytical and summative points of view; the dynamic conception, as opposed to the static and machine, theoretical conceptions; the consideration of the organism as a primary activity, as opposed to the conception of its primary reactivity.“ Page 19
What can be learned from a book of biology written the year before the discovery of the DNA molecule? Apparently quite a lot.
“Embryonic development from the scantily differentiated ovum to a highly organized, multicellular structure, connotes an increase of order due to factors lying within the system itself. From the point of you of physics, such behavior seems at first paradoxical. A physical system cannot increase its order by itself; on the contrary, the second law of thermodynamics demands that in every closed system, a decrease is the natural course of events. The behavior of the developing embryo presupposes, first, that there are specific organizational forces working towards higher levels of order; and secondly, that the embryo is not a closed system.” Page 64.
“Science is not a mere accumulation of facts; facts become knowledge only when incorporated into a conceptual system.” Page 70.
“From the standpoint of physics, the characteristic state in which we find, the living organism can be defined by stating that it is not an O closed system with respect to its surroundings, but an open system, which continually gives up matter to the outer world, and takes in matter from it, but which maintains itself in this continuous exchange in a steady state, or approaches such steady state, and its variations in time.“ Page 125.
“As in modern physics, there is no matter in the sense of rigid and inert particles, but rather atoms are node points of a wave dynamics, so in biology, there is no rigid organic form as a bearer of the processes of life; rather there is a flow of process says, manifesting itself, and apparently persistent forms.” page 139.
Organic systems are not stimulus response machines. “Organic systems are not set going primarily by an outside influence, the stimulus, but are inherently active systems.”
“In living organisms, however, we find the preservation of order and an avoidance of equilibrium.“ Page 145.
“In contrast, the thermodynamics of open systems inaugurates completely new points of view. Systems of this kind need not approach maximum entropy and disorder, and a standstill of processes and certain thermodynamic equilibrium.” Page 145.
I dislike both mechanism and vitalism. I see merit in the idea of emergent properties. I do like his ‘organismic.’ However, at the end he wishes to praise several philosophers as precursors to this way of thinking: Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Heraclitus, Hegel, Holderlin and others. He sees merit in Marx’s holism. Yikes.
“… The latter is maintained in a state of continuous flux, a perpetual, breaking down and replacement of its building materials.” Page 17.“Organic structures are themselves, the expression of an order to process, and are only maintained in and by this process.”
“Primarily, organic processes are determined by the mutual interaction of the conditions present in the total system, by a dynamic order, as we may call it.” Page 17 “this is at the basis of organic, regular ability.”
“The organismic conception: “the conception of the system, as a whole, as opposed to the analytical and summative points of view; the dynamic conception, as opposed to the static and machine, theoretical conceptions; the consideration of the organism as a primary activity, as opposed to the conception of its primary reactivity.“ Page 19
What can be learned from a book of biology written the year before the discovery of the DNA molecule? Apparently quite a lot.
“Embryonic development from the scantily differentiated ovum to a highly organized, multicellular structure, connotes an increase of order due to factors lying within the system itself. From the point of you of physics, such behavior seems at first paradoxical. A physical system cannot increase its order by itself; on the contrary, the second law of thermodynamics demands that in every closed system, a decrease is the natural course of events. The behavior of the developing embryo presupposes, first, that there are specific organizational forces working towards higher levels of order; and secondly, that the embryo is not a closed system.” Page 64.
“Science is not a mere accumulation of facts; facts become knowledge only when incorporated into a conceptual system.” Page 70.
“From the standpoint of physics, the characteristic state in which we find, the living organism can be defined by stating that it is not an O closed system with respect to its surroundings, but an open system, which continually gives up matter to the outer world, and takes in matter from it, but which maintains itself in this continuous exchange in a steady state, or approaches such steady state, and its variations in time.“ Page 125.
“As in modern physics, there is no matter in the sense of rigid and inert particles, but rather atoms are node points of a wave dynamics, so in biology, there is no rigid organic form as a bearer of the processes of life; rather there is a flow of process says, manifesting itself, and apparently persistent forms.” page 139.
Organic systems are not stimulus response machines. “Organic systems are not set going primarily by an outside influence, the stimulus, but are inherently active systems.”
“In living organisms, however, we find the preservation of order and an avoidance of equilibrium.“ Page 145.
“In contrast, the thermodynamics of open systems inaugurates completely new points of view. Systems of this kind need not approach maximum entropy and disorder, and a standstill of processes and certain thermodynamic equilibrium.” Page 145.
I dislike both mechanism and vitalism. I see merit in the idea of emergent properties. I do like his ‘organismic.’ However, at the end he wishes to praise several philosophers as precursors to this way of thinking: Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Heraclitus, Hegel, Holderlin and others. He sees merit in Marx’s holism. Yikes.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews