Science

2019 ◽  
pp. 132-159
Author(s):  
Julie Chajes
Keyword(s):  
German Romanticism ◽  
Ernst Haeckel ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
Theories Of Evolution

Chapter 6 considers how Blavatsky constructed science as a category and situates this construal within a world in which the boundaries of ‘legitimate’ science were more contested than they are today. The chapter demonstrates that Blavatsky’s conceptualisations of rebirth owe a considerable debt to the scientific theories under discussion at her time of writing. It explores her debt to the controversial physicists Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) and Peter Guthrie Tait (1831–1909), her hostility towards the popular materialist monism of Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), her hatred of Darwinism, and her preference for theories of evolution influenced by German Romanticism, such as the theories of orthogenesis proposed by Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli (1817–1891), Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876), and Darwin’s nemesis, Richard Owen (1804–1892).

The Life of Richard Owen

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Owen
Keyword(s):  
Richard Owen

Review of The structure of scientific theories. 2nd ed.

1978 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 473-473
Author(s):  
DAVID L. KRANTZ
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Theories

Darwin's two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa?

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Record ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Single Origin ◽  
Molecular Studies ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
First Time

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.

Science and Dialectics in the Philosophies of Deleuze, Bachelard and DeLanda

Paragraph ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Williams
Keyword(s):  
Gilles Deleuze ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Gaston Bachelard ◽  
Contemporary Science

This article charts differences between Gilles Deleuze's and Gaston Bachelard's philosophies of science in order to reflect on different readings of the role of science in Deleuze's philosophy, in particular in relation to Manuel DeLanda's interpretation of Deleuze's work. The questions considered are: Why do Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard develop radically different philosophical dialectics in relation to science? What is the significance of this difference for current approaches to Deleuze and science, most notably as developed by Manuel DeLanda? It is argued that, despite its great explanatory power, DeLanda's association of Deleuze with a particular set of contemporary scientific theories does not allow for the ontological openness and for the metaphysical sources of Deleuze's work. The argument turns on whether terms such as ‘intensity’ can be given predominantly scientific definitions or whether metaphysical definitions are more consistent with a sceptical relation of philosophy to contemporary science.

As dúvidas de Kierkegaard: ou sobre o legado pedagógico do romantismo alemão

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-238
Author(s):  
Jean Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Soren Kierkegaard ◽  
German Idealism ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
German Romanticism ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Don Juan ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Belo Horizonte

Resumo: O artigo leva em conta a recepção de Kierkegaard sobre o modo como os românticos lidam com o conhecimento e argumenta que o dinamarquês tem algo a dizer sobre temáticas de educação que estão hoje na ordem do dia. O artigo mostra ainda como Kierkegaard lida com temas transdisciplinares e em que medida a herança romântica, em contraposição ao legado iluminista, o ajuda a conceber sua reflexão pedagógica e existencial.Palavras-chave: Kierkegaard. Educação. Romantismo alemão. Pedagogia. Dúvida Abstract: The article takes into account Kierkegaard's reception of how the romantics deal with knowledge and argues that the Danish has something to say about education issues that are today the order of the day. The article also shows how Kierkegaard deals with transdisciplinary themes and to what extent the romantic heritage, in contrast to the enlightened legacy, helps him to conceive his pedagogical and existential reflection. Keywords: Kierkegaard. Education. German romanticism. Pedagogy. Doubt. REFERÊNCIASBEISER, Frederick. German Idealism: The Struggle against subjectivism 1781-1801. Londres: Harvard University Press, 2002.BERLIN, Isaiah. As raízes do romantismo. São Paulo: Três Estrelas, 2015.GRAMMONT, Guiomar de. Don Juan, Fausto e o Judeu Errante em Kierkeggard. Petrópolis: Catedral das Letras, 2003.KIERKEGAARD, Søren. Johannes Clímacus ou é preciso duvidar de tudo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.KIERKEGAARD, Søren. Ponto de vista explicativo da minha obra de escritor: uma comunicação direta, relatório à História. Tradução de João Gama. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2002._______. Ou-ou: um fragmento de vida. Volume I. Tradução de Elisabete M. de Sousa. Lisboa: Relógios’d’água, 2013a._______. Pós-escrito conclusivo não científico às Migalhas filosóficas: coletânea mímico-patético-dialética, contribuição existencial, por Johannes Climacus.  Tradução de Álvaro L. M, Valls. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2013. v.1._______. Temor e Tremor. Tradução de Maria José Marinho. São Paulo: Abril cultural, 1974. (Os pensadores).LÖWITH, Karl. De Hegel à Nietzsche. Tradução de Rémi Laureillard, Paris: Gallimard, 1969.PATTINSON, George. Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004.SAFRANSKI, Rudiger. Romantismo: uma questão alemã. Tradução de Rita Rios. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2010.VALLS, Álvaro; MARTINS, Jasson. (Org.). Kierkegaard no nosso tempo. São Leopoldo: Nova Harmonia, 2010.VARGAS, Jean. Kierkegaard entre a existência e o niilismo. Puc Minas: Sapere Aude, Belo Horizonte, v.6–n.12, Jul./Dez.2015, p. 657-671.VARGAS, Jean. Indivíduo e multidão: uma reflexão sobre o lugar da ética no pensamento de Søren Kierkegaard. UFMG: Outramargem, Belo Horizonte, V.  - n., 2 Semestre 2014, p. 99-109.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document