康德早年 (1747-1763) 的自然哲學甚至連歷史學者都很少去讀，但現在卻被稱譽為當代物理學和宇宙論中「現今各模型的精髓」。本文要解構一個以訛傳訛的看法，認為早期的康德只是一位平庸的思想家，並且徹底考察康德存有論的現代科學意義。學界的老套意見有下面幾點困難無法解釋：一、康德在大學會因為來自基督教的反對克勞岑(Knutzen) 而學業失利，二、康德最早關於教學形式上的靈感是得自一位中國專家比爾芬格(Bilfinger)，三、康德表達他對一位數學家歐以樂 (Euler) 的想法的同意而後者的作品近年來導致物理學上的超弦理論革命。本文焦點正是康德早年與奧義勒的關係以及對他的回應，特別是康德1756年論「物性單子」的博士論文裡。我主張康德成功結合起他自己的和奧義勒的觀點，而且康德的存有論正是今天的超弦理論和M理論的一面早期的鏡子，如同奧義勒的貝塔函數（beta function）曾是這些理論的數學鑰匙般。 Kant's early philosophy of nature (1747-1763) is seldom read even by historians but happens to be praised as "the essence of modern models" in contemporary physics and cosmology. The paper deconstructs the misleading cliche of the early Kant as a mediocre thinker and explores the current scientific significance of Kant's ontology. The scholarly cliche has difficulties explaining that (1) Kant failed at the university because of Christian opposition (Knutzen), that (2) Kant's early inspiration about heuristic form was by a China-expert (Bilfinger), and that (3) Kant expressed his agreement with the ideas of a mathematician whose work recently led to the superstring revolution (Euler). The focus of the paper is Kant's early relation and response to Euler, specifically Kant's dissertation on "physical monads" (1756). I argue that Kant succeeds at joining his and Euler's perspectives, and that Kant's ontology is as much of an early mirror of superstring- and M-theory today as Euler's beta function was their mathematical key.
政治大學哲學學報, 13, 92-124 The national Chengchi university philosophical