Monism and the Religion of Science

Monism was not just a philosophical outlook, but also an early twentieth-century new religious movement. Founded by the internationally renowned evolutionary theorist Ernst Haeckel, it was supposed to be a “Religion of Science” that repudiated matter-mind dualism in favor of reverence for a divinized Mother Nature. This article traces the genesis of the German Monist League and how it was transplanted to the United States by the publisher, Paul Carus. Although readers of this journal are likely to know about new religions that embrace “pseudoscience,” the surprise is that Monism had followers with significant scientific renown including multiple Nobel Prize-winning scientists, famous philosophers of science, and even a celebrated sociologist. Scholars of secularism or science and religion will want to know about how Haeckel and his followers constructed a hybrid Scientific Faith or Secular Church that this article demonstrates went on to provide the foundation for professionalizing American philosophy.

On subfamily structure of the Cupedidae (Coleoptera, Archostemata): data from paleontology and an approach to solving conflicting classifications

This paper demonstrates some of main differences between the systematic constructions based mostly on paleontological research and constructions involving the other approaches. Some reasons for these differences are discussed, together with an approach to solve contradictions between the conflicting hypotheses. The multiple (multidimensional) parallelism gives a possibility to solve many problems of phylogenetic interrelations due to reconstructions based on coincidence of patterns of changes (series of interconnected facts) traced in different aspects of evolutionary processes. This principle originates in the ideas by Jean Agassiz and Ernst Haeckel defined as the principle of triple parallelism. Other aspects of the evolution can be added to the morphology, embryology, and paleontology, initially included in this method. The molecular method is one of such aspects. It is shown that the potential resolution of the morphological and molecular approaches in some cases could be rather restricted, particularly applying ancient groups with main evolutionary transformations passed far in the past. The infraorder Cupediformia and suborder Archostemata in general are examples of such cases. It is advisable in the current research period that has followed the previous interpretation of the systematic structure of the family Cupedidae recognizing three subfamilies with not quite distinct hiatus between them (Cupedinae, Ommatinae and Triadocupedinae). Some recent morphological and molecular approaches proposed to divide the Cupedidae into two separate families on the basis of incomplete information accessible after study of only modern representatives, as most events in the family evolution occurred during the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic, and these events are scarcely possible to trace without considering fossils. As the principle of multiple parallelism cannot be currently used for archostematans to the full extent of its power, it is necessary to choose the paleontological method of phylogenetic reconstruction as crucial. This approach is preferable for groups that are well-documented through very diverse fossils, and for which only few of its remnants of the past diversity reached the modern epoque.

Nietzsche contra Haeckel

Resumo: Nas poucas referências explícitas de Nietzsche ao biólogo alemão Ernst Haeckel, há uma clara rejeição de seu pensamento biológico e cultural. O objetivo deste artigo é propor que, apesar da pequena quantidade de citações diretas, os ataques de Nietzsche a Haeckel constituem um intenso antagonismo entre eles e inserem-se no contexto das críticas nietzschianas contra a formação (Bildung) e a cultura (Kultur) alemãs e contra a condição metafísica da ciência. O texto apresenta quatro aspectos do antagonismo entre Nietzsche e Haeckel: das Darwinismus de Haeckel; a influência de Haeckel sobre David Strauss; a inclusão do evolucionismo científico no currículo na Alemanha; e o conflito entre Ludwig Rütimeyer e Haeckel.

DEEP ECOLOGY

O estudo da ecologia baseia-se nas interações entre os diversos organismos vivos em uma rede conectada chamada ecossistema. O termo foi cunhado em 1866 pelo biólogo alemão Ernst Haeckel como um estudo sistemático da inter-relação dos seres vivos na terra. Contudo, a partir do século 20, os impactos socioambientais herdados pela idade moderna, começaram a se tornar amplamente perceptíveis e criticados. Com isso, a partir desse instante, diversos movimentos ambientais surgiram, pautados em temáticas de sustentabilidade e consciência ambiental. Nesse sentido, este estudo tem o objetivo de verificar a perspectiva ecológica contemporânea, a partir das vertentes do movimento denominado Deep ecology. Para tanto, foi empreendida pesquisa bibliográfica para fomentar a compreensão histórica e filosófica da ecologia, bem como para o entendimento da origem da Deep ecology e suas supostas perspectivas teosóficas. Em 1970, o filósofo escandinavo Arne Naess (1912-2009) estabeleceu, com base nos pensamentos de Baruch Spinoza e outros filósofos, uma linha de pensamento sobre a responsabilidade humana em relação à natureza. Sua filosofia, buscava estipular uma ecologia profunda, a qual reestruturasse as concepções ecológicas modernas e antropocêntricas. Portanto, espera-se compreender as mudanças da concepção ecológica na história visando os impactos ambientais causados no século 19 e 20 enquanto pano de fundo histórico para melhor percepção da perspectiva da Deep ecology, a partir da década de 1970. Ainda se conclui incipientemente que o pensamento proposto por Naess estabelece, hoje, medidas ecológicas sustentáveis e eficazes para uma melhor cidadania planetária.

The meaning of absence: the primate tree that did not make it into Darwin's The Descent of Man

This paper engages with a specific image: Darwin's tree of the primates. Although this diagram was sketched in ink on paper in 1868, it did not make it into the publication of The Descent of Man (1871). This may seem all the more in need of an explanation because, as Adrian Desmond and James Moore have shown, Darwin strongly relied on the notion of familial genealogy in the development of his theory of organismic evolution, or rather descent. However, Darwin expressed scepticism towards visualizations of phylogenies in correspondence with Ernst Haeckel and in fact also in Descent, considering such representations at once too speculative and too concrete. An abstraction such as a tree diagram left little room to ponder possibilities or demarcate hypotheses from evidence. I thus bring Darwin's primate tree into communication with his view on primate and human phylogeny as formulated in Descent, including his rejection of polygenism. I argue that considering the tree's inherent teleology, as well as its power to suggest species status of human populations and to reify ‘racial’ hierarchies, the absence of the diagram in The Descent of Man may be a significant statement.

O evolucionismo na psicologia educacional: uma análise historiográfica

Resumo Analisa-se o discurso sobre o desenvolvimento humano veiculado em manuais de psicologia educacional destinados à formação docente. Caracteriza-se nesses discursos a presença da “teoria da recapitulação”. Essa teoria, elaborada por Ernst Haeckel no campo da embriologia no final do século XIX, afirma que o indivíduo atravessa diversos estágios de desenvolvimento, que correspondem à forma adulta de seus antepassados na sequência evolutiva. Foi apropriada pela psicologia e serviu como modelo explicativo para diversos aspectos do desenvolvimento, desde as diferenças individuais e grupais na forma e no tamanho do cérebro até a evolução da linguagem e da moral. A análise recorre aos escritos de Michel Foucault acerca da análise do discurso e de Nikolas Rose a respeito da história da psicologia.