The Role of Invariance Principles in Natural Philosophy

Author(s):  
E. P. Wigner
Apeiron ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Woodcox

AbstractThis paper offers a novel interpretation of the nature and role of logical (logikôs) argumentation in Aristotle’s natural philosophy. In contrast to the standard domain interpretation, which makes logikôs argumentation the contrary of phusikôs, relying on principles drawn from outside the domain of natural science, I propose that the essential or defining feature of logikôs argumentation is the use of principles that are general relative to the question under investigation. My interpretation is developed and illustrated with a close textual analysis of Aristotle’s explanation of mule sterility in Generation of Animals II 8.


2020 ◽  
pp. 45-65
Author(s):  
Darya Morozova

The article analyzes the ethical and theological content of the apocryphal Syrian "autobiography" of St. Clement of Rome (Epytome), as well as its early Slavic translation (Life of St. Clement). The study uses historical-philosophical, patristic and philological methodology to outline the specific teachings, attributed to St. Clement by this Greek-speaking Syrian text from the pseudo-Clementine cycle. The methods of comparative textology and translation studies are used to analyze the features of the Slavic version of the work. The study revealed that, contrary to the ideas of the publisher of the Slavic version, P. Lavrov, the translation was undoubtedly made according to the archaic, pre-metaphrasic version of the work. Therefore, it can be dated to the ninth century and come from the school of Cyril and Methodius. The popularity of the monument among Slavic readers is partly explained by the archaic features of the original version of the work preserved in the translation, such as graphic imagery, expressive presentation, and numerous dialogues. Such a lively account facilitated the perception of the conceptually rich ethical content of the work. At the heart of both Greek and Slavic versions is the ethical category of philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία), which figures as a central Christian virtue. Much of the Epitome is devoted to a detailed explanation of this category and its distinction from other virtues. In the original, the ethics of philanthropy is opposed to the astrological ideology represented by Clement’s father Faust. Faust's views are based on the natural philosophical ideas of the early Greek Stoics. Apostle Peter, Clement's teacher, responds to his arguments from the standpoint of Judeo-Christian monotheism, referring to the biblical history of his people. Thus, Hellenism is confronted with biblical monotheism. So, Epitome appears a kind of argument in the controversy between Gentile Christians and Judeo-Christians (Ebionites), which has troubled the Syrian Church for centuries. However, in translation, this clash of worldviews remains obscured, as the translator does not seem to recognize either the terminology of Stoic natural philosophy, or astrological issues, or the debate between the traditions of Peter and Paul in Syria. Thus, all the Stoic terminology of Faust is reduced to a single concept of "being". Therefore, in the translated version, the controversy is not so much between Christianity and astrology, as between ethics and "ontology". Instead, the translator enriches the philosophical outline of the work with polysemic Slavic vocabulary, which sheds new light on the role of the bishop in Peter’s instructions to Clement. Comparison of the Greek and Slavic versions of the Epitome – an autobiography attributed to St. Clement – with his only authentic work, 1Corinthians, allowed to draw another unexpected conclusion. All these works are not only devoted to one main problem - the restoration of peace in the controversial Christian community, but also offer similar ways out of the crisis through brotherly love, solidarity and respect for the otherness of the fellow Christians. This may indicate either that the author of the Syrian apocrypha was inspired by the true Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, or that the image of St. Clement, that developed in the early tradition, dictated the message of the pseudo-epigraph quite powerfully. Due to this consonance, the apocryphal work of the Syrian Ebionites did to some extent acquaint Slavic readers with the ideas of Clement of Rome, whose only authentic work was almost unknown in the Middle Ages.


This article investigates whether it possible to derive a new narrative about the transformation of early modern natural philosophy from the way in which natural philosophy was systematized in academic writings. It introduces the notion of ‘normalisation’—the mutual adaptation of certain ideas and existing traditions—as a way of studying and explaining conceptual changes during relatively long periods of time. The article provides the methodological underpinnings of this account of normalisation and offers a preliminary application of it by focusing on the role of ‘occasional causality’ in natural philosophy through the writings of four authors: Pierre Sylvain Régis (1632-1707), Johann Christoph Sturm (1635-1703), Petrus van Musschenbroek (1692-1761), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who progressively normalise an account of ‘occasional causality’.


This monographic issue of History of Universities presents new materials and case studies in order to deepen our understanding of the role of the academic milieu in the early modern reshaping of natural philosophy. The contributions included in this volume aim to pursue two main axes of research: (1) the reconstruction and exploration of the dialectics between tradition and innovation in the reshaping of natural philosophy; (2) the attempt to constitute and consolidate new traditions in natural philosophy. This introduction presents the general topic of the volume, the methodological approach developed by the contributors and the contents of each contribution.


Philosophies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arran Gare

Prior to the nineteenth century, those who are now regarded as scientists were referred to as natural philosophers. With empiricism, science was claimed to be a superior form of knowledge to philosophy, and natural philosophy was marginalized. This claim for science was challenged by defenders of natural philosophy, and this debate has continued up to the present. The vast majority of mainstream scientists are comfortable in the belief that through applying the scientific method, knowledge will continue to accumulate, and that claims to knowledge outside science apart from practical affairs should not be taken seriously. This is referred to as scientism. It is incumbent on those who defend natural philosophy against scientism not only to expose the illusions and incoherence of scientism, but to show that natural philosophers can make justifiable claims to advancing knowledge. By focusing on a recent characterization and defense of natural philosophy along with a reconstruction of the history of natural philosophy, showing the nature and role of Schelling’s conception of dialectical thinking, I will attempt to identify natural philosophy as a coherent tradition of thought and defend it as something different from science and as essential to it, and essential to the broader culture and to civilization.


An invitation from the President of the Royal Society to speak at one of these Dinners gives pleasure and confers honour; but it also disconcerts, for the Society, by its motto of Nullius in verba , gives notice that the President and the Fellows and the Foreign Members, some of whom are present tonight, do not intend to take on trust anything that the speaker may say: which, if it were so, would be a pity, because I shall have occasion to express the gratitude and appreciation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for what the Society does in the field of its foreign relations and I should wish my words to be believed. Digressing for a moment, I am going to take advantage of this phrase Nullius in verba because a former President of the Royal Society, who was also a very distinguished classical scholar, once said that all bureaucrats of all countries should be required to speak in Esperanto; but this evening I propose to speak English. I am told by a former Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society that this motto means nothing more than ‘check the evidence’. It must be admitted that by checking the evidence and by testing the validity of propositions in the field of natural philosophy in the 314 years which have elapsed since the Society was founded, science has come a long way; to the benefit, on balance, of the greater part of mankind. Yet, at the beginning of this century, I think the Royal Society was over-optimistic about the role of science in society.


2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Demetris Koutsoyiannis

Hydrology has played an important role in the birth of science. Yet practical hydrological knowledge, related to human needs for water storage, transfer and management, existed before the development of natural philosophy and science. In contemporary times, hydrology has had strong links with engineering as its development has been related to the needs of the design and management of water infrastructures. In the 1980s these links were questioned and it was suggested that separating hydrology from engineering would be beneficial for both. It is argued that, thereafter, hydrology, instead of becoming an autonomous science, developed new dependencies, particularly on politically driven agendas. This change of direction in effect demoted the role of hydrology, for example in studying hypothetical or projected climate-related threats. Revisiting past experiences suggests that re-establishing the relationship of hydrology with engineering could be beneficial. The study of change and the implied uncertainty and risk could constitute a field of mutual integration of hydrology and engineering. Engineering experience may help hydrology to appreciate that change is essential for progress and evolution, rather than only having adverse impacts. While the uncertainty and risk cannot be eliminated they can be dealt with in a quantitative and rigorous manner.


Author(s):  
Deborah Boyle

The prolific Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673) published books on natural philosophy as well as stories, plays, poems, orations, allegories, and letters. Her mature philosophical system offered a unique vitalist materialist theory of Nature as composed of a continuous, non-atomistic, perceiving, knowing matter. In contrast to the dominant philosophical thinking of her day, Cavendish argued that all matter has free will and can choose whether or not to follow Nature’s rules. The Well-Ordered Universe explores the development of Cavendish’s natural philosophy from the atomism of her 1653 Poems, and Fancies to the vitalist materialism of her 1668 Grounds of Natural Philosophy and argues that her natural philosophy, her medical theories, and her social and political philosophy are all informed by an underlying concern with order, regularity, and rule-following. This focus on order reveals interesting connections among apparently disparate elements of Cavendish’s philosophical program, including her views on gender, on animals and the environment, and on sickness and health. Focusing on the role of order in Cavendish’s philosophy also helps reveal some key differences between her natural philosophy and her social and political philosophy, where Cavendish tended to be quite conservative. Cavendish thought that humans’ special desire for public recognition often leads to an unruly ambition, causing humans to disrupt society in ways not seen in the rest of Nature. The Well-Ordered Universe thus defends reading Cavendish as a royalist who endorsed absolute monarchy and a rigid social hierarchy for maintaining order in human society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document