A vitalism word scramble (Ѻ), showing all the telltale signs of defunctness associated with this term, namely: bioenergetics, teleology, emergent, immaterial, posited, pejorative, animus, mesmerism, etc. |
“If the concept, however, is extended to include the assumption that the vital force, pushes out and replaces the original forces of matter, so that the latter cease to operate, then one has gone too far; for at times it is possible by experimentation to unite the lifeless fundamental substances into compounds identical with those that are formed through vital processes.”
“It is the object of these researchers to do away with life as an explanation, wherever organic chemistry is concerned.”
"Solely by a combination of time and ordinary affinities."
“In living nature the elements seem to obey entirely different laws than they do in the dead … The essence of the living body consequently is not founded in its inorganic elements, but in some other thing, which disposes the inorganic elements … to produce a certain result, specific and characteristic of each species.”
Molecular structure of the organic compound urea, CO(HN2)2, synthesized by Friedrich Wohler in 1828 from "inorganic" components, thus disproving the vital force theory of organic chemistry. |
“To suppose that the elements are imbued with other fundamental forces in organic nature than in the inorganic is an absurdity … the fact that we cannot rightly understand the conditions prevailing in organic nature gives us no sufficient reason to adopt other forces.”
See main: Neo-vitalismInto the 20th century, according to English biologist James Johnstone, a hue of residual or covert vitalism remained. As explained in his 1921 chapter on the nature of life: [3]
“Into the last generation there has been a recrudescence of vitalism—‘neo-vitalism’ it is now called—being obviously something that seems to be different from the Cartesian speculations about the sensitive soul. At its best this is seen in the ‘psychoids’ and ‘entelechies’ of Driesch and others, concepts which are applicable to living things only, and not to chemical and physical phenomena. At its worst modern vitalism is exhibited in the crude and even grotesque ‘spiritualism’ which has attained such a vogue with the less resolute thinkers of our own generation. This, then, is the modern impasse to which biology has come. Purely physico-chemical explanations of life are not satisfactory, and the immaterial and non-energetic agencies that are being invoked in their place have no interest for science, since they cannot be the objects of investigations.”
“Life probably itself has existed on earth for 1,000 million years [and] in living processes the increase of entropy is retarded—this is our ‘vital’ concept.”
A 2011 poster for an anti-vitalism conference in Zagreb. [12] |
“‘Life’ is the site of a formidable lacuna. There is no firmly established scientific account of its constitutive properties or the process of its genesis. Varieties of “vital materialism” prone to describing physical forces in terms of an inherent “life of things” have done little to clarify the problematic nature of the concept, and insofar as “life” functions as an empty signifier concealing an absence of theoretical coherence we might be better to have done with it.”
“All vital phenomena can be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.”— Wilhelm Kuhne (1898), anti neo-vitalism talk in England (Ѻ)
“Exact knowledge is the enemy of vitalism.”— Francis Crick (1963), Of Molecules and Men (vii)