Kant’s views on preformation and epigenesis

How does Kant repsond to the early modern preformation-epigenesis controversy? In part 1 of the paper, I will introduce the historical context: I provide an overview of important systematic characteristics of ovistic and animalculist preformationist (1.1) and mechanical and vitalistic epigenetic (1.2) early modern accounts of reproduction and heredity. In part 2 of the paper, I will introduce the scholarly debate (2.1) about Kant’s reception of the early modern controversy: while no one considers Kant a radical defender of preformation, some scholars consider him a more or less radical defender of epigenesis. A greater number of scholars read Kant’s position as a combination of preformationist and epigenetic elements. Others ignore or even deny any influence of the preformation-epigenesis controversy on Kant. Based on an analysis of preformationist (2.2) and epigenetic elements (2.3) in Kant’s relevant writings, I will support scholars (2.4) who claim that Kant’s position contains both, preformationist and epigenetic elements, but will do so on a far more comprehensive analysis of criteria. I will also go beyond existing discussions deciding whether Kant’s account was closer to ovistic or animalculist variants of preformation, and mechanical or vitalistic variants of epigenesis.