In modern German ‘Anschauung’ is translated as intuition. But in Kant’s technical philosophical context, it means an intuition derived from previous visualizations of physical processes in the world of perceptions. The nineteenth century chemists’ predilection for Kantian Anschauung led them to develop an intuitive representation of what exists beyond the bounds of the senses. Molecular structure is one of the illuminating outcomes. (Ochiai 2021, pp. 1–51) This mental habit seems to be dominant among chemists even in the twentieth century, as (...) is illustrated by the electronic theory of organic chemistry and the frontier orbital theory as well. The former assumes that (1) bonds are paired electrons shared by bonded atoms—in fact, electrons in molecules are not localized in bonds; (2) the difference of electronegativities between bonded atoms causes electron drifts—expressed by the curly arrow—that result in bond formation or bond cleavage. The latter focuses on the orbitals that make the greatest contribution to the energy of a system undergoing electron delocalization, while the LCAO method says, as is suggested by the word Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals, molecular orbitals should be constructed from all of the atomic orbitals that have the appropriate symmetry. In other words, every molecular orbital contributes to some extent to the electronic state of a molecule. The curly arrow in the electronic theory and the orbital lobe in the frontier orbital theory illustrate an intuitive character of these theories. Although both theories rely on such simple and qualitative models rather than mathematically rigid quantum mechanical calculations, they are successful in explaining, predicting, and designing chemical reactions. What makes these prima facie intuitive theories so successful? In this study we address this problem from a historical and philosophical as well as scientific point of view. The key to solve this problem is that they are concerned with only bond formation or bond cleavage, in which the localized-bond principle holds. (shrink)

Abstract‘Structure’ is the term whose proper use is exemplified by an expression like ‘the structure of a diesel-engine,’ in which what is referred to is accessible to immediate observation. It is also used figuratively like ‘social structure.’ While unobservable, what is referred to is empirically accessible. By contrast, molecules are neither observable nor empirically accessible. What philosophical grounds enable us to design invisible structure of molecules? Our cognition of objects becomes realized as phenomena when objects are given to our phenomenal (...) fields. (Ochiai, Found Chem 22:77–86, 2020a, Found Chem 22:457–465, 2020b, A philosophical essay on molecular structure, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 147–174, 2021) A phenomenal field is a pictorial representation of the mind’s self-transcending character and shows the relation between ‘self’ and ‘world.’ Molecular structure becomes realized as an affordance of molecules in a phenomenal field proper to organic chemists. It is a context-sensitive dispositional attribute of an {organic chemist-world} complex. Although designing molecules presupposes molecular structure, the latter is not sufficient for the former to make sense. Molecules must be designable as well. Designing molecules aims to create or modify molecular structure in order to provide compounds with certain chemical and/or physical properties. That is, designable molecules make sense in contexts in which they serve as a means to achieve this purpose and become realized as an affordance. Given that molecular structure and designable molecules are affordances of molecules, the fact that there are contexts in which they make sense provides grounds for conceiving and designing invisible structure of molecules. Heidegger’s arguments in Being and Time about characteristics of the being of beings corroborate our argument that what becomes realized as an affordance exists as what he calls a useful thing for us. (shrink)