Russian Formalism vs Germanic Formalism: exploring the concept of European Formalism

This comparative reading of two conceptual corpora, Russian formalism and Germano-Austrian or Germanic formalism, begins with the idea that the European formalism presents a coherent unit. The continuity of this program authorizes such a comparative reading. The comparative analysis of formalisms in Europe could be a research program aimed at an epistemological reading of the phenomenon of European formalism at the turn of the 20th century. This program deals with a rereading of two conceptual fields–Russian formalism and Germanic (Germano-Austrian) formalism. This study seeks to contextualise the formalist project within the knowledge of its time by showing its genetic links with the disciplines of this period and by introducing it as an epistemological fact. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the growth of psychologism in aesthetic theories, constitutes a reaction against the dominant scientific positivism in the “humanities” of this period. Stemming from the tensions between “aesthetics from below” and “aesthetics from above,” European formalism expresses and achieves a heterogeneous aesthetic program, halfway between “experimental science” and the “science of lived experience.”

Fiction and Scientism: Iosi Havilio’s Opendoor and Paraísos and Roque Larraquy’s La comemadre

The presence of late 19th century scientific positivism is evident in novels by Roque Larraquy (especially La comemadre, 2010) and Iosi Havilio (Opendoor, 2006 and Paraísos, 2011), set in part or entirely in the 21st century. I argue that Larraquy finds a narrative tone and character type in turn-of-the-century institutions and archives, whereas Havilio procures a motivation for a protagonist otherwise devoid of passions. For both novelists, the archive functions more as a narrative device than as a search for knowledge or meaning (as it does in boom novels). In this way, both the institutions created in the late 19th century (a psychiatric residence, a hospital, a zoo) and the textual remnants of the time (a botanical encyclopedia, an inaugural speech in a fin-de-siècle ward, a travel narrative, the magazine Caras y Caretas) are retrieved in these contemporary novels through light affective responses, such as curiosity and interest, and spaces of serendipity and abandonment, like the attic.

The importance of multidisciplinary cooperation and transdisciplinary research for overcoming the crisis of social humanities

We live in an age of the rise of scientific positivism, methodological particularism, and disciplinary chaos. We are witnessing the process of fragmentation of the scientific system, partialization, dehumanization and marginalization of the social sciences. The paper discusses the importance of multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research for overcoming the crisis of social sciences and humanities. In this context, special emphasis is placed on the importance of improving the practice of integrated studies in the education system at universities; and especially the importance of cooperation between natural / biomedical research and humanities (genetics, ecology, anthropology, demography, philosophy, ethics, history, psychology and sociology).

The Politics of Relativity

This chapter focuses on the key role played by fundamental science and, in particular, by Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Mariátegui’s thought. Despite his limited grasp of fundamental physics, Mariátegui was deeply interested in the change of scientific paradigm brought about by Einsteinian physics. For the Peruvian Marxist, the Theory of Relativity demonstrated the contingency of truth (scientific or otherwise) as a historically bound discursive construct devoid of any universal validity. Taking Einstein’s scientific revolution as a source of inspiration for revolutionary politics, Mariátegui reclaimed in his journalistic essays the value of scientific inquiry to the development of a revolutionary conscience. In doing so, he transforms the Theory of Relativity into a tool of ideological critique, capable of subverting the contemporary logic of coloniality and the strong links between scientific positivism and the projects of modernity designed by the Latin American ruling elites at the turn of the century.

Introduction

The emergence of a scholarly and popular interest in religious experience, spirituality and mysticism around 1900 plays a crucial role in the further transformations in religion in the twentieth century and in contemporary Western and non-Western societies. This volume contains philosophical reflections on the emergence of these new constellations, discourses and practices. The ‘rediscovery’ of the various spiritual and mystical sources and traditions, and the turn towards the individual’s religious experiences, can be situated against the background of a growing critique of global scientific positivism and the rise of secular (atheistic, Marxist) philosophies. The turn to spirituality and mysticism is associated with political projects of anti-imperialist emancipation in for example, India, the Islamic countries, Russia and Latin-America. Through philosophical inquiries into key authors such as Bergson, Blondel, James, Heidegger, Bremond, Weil, Solov’ëv, Rodó, Iqbal and Vivekenanda, this volume presents a comprehensive perspective on the fundamental issues and discussions that inspired the turn to spirituality in a modern era of secular reason.

Lewes, George Henry (1817–78)

Lewes was a philosophical historian and journalist, an exponent of the ideas of Auguste Comte, Goethe, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel and Kant, and author of the five-volume Problems of Life and Mind. The intent of his first book, The Biographical History of Philosophy, was to remove metaphysics from philosophical investigation and focus instead on scientific positivism. Contemporaries such as Darwin, Huxley and John Stuart Mill recognized Lewes’s reputation as a philosopher and expositor of scientific work.

Lay Americans’ views of why scientists disagree with each other

A survey experiment assessed response to five explanations of scientific disputes: problem complexity, self-interest, values, competence, and process choices (e.g. theories and methods). A US lay sample ( n = 453) did not distinguish interests from values, nor competence from process, as explanations of disputes. Process/competence was rated most likely and interests/values least; all, on average, were deemed likely to explain scientific disputes. Latent class analysis revealed distinct subgroups varying in their explanation preferences, with a more complex latent class structure for participants who had heard of scientific disputes in the past. Scientific positivism and judgments of science’s credibility were the strongest predictors of latent class membership, controlling for scientific reasoning, political ideology, confidence in choice, scenario, education, gender, age, and ethnicity. The lack of distinction observed overall between different explanations, as well as within classes, raises challenges for further research on explanations of scientific disputes people find credible and why.

Om positivisme og objektivisme i samfundsvidenskaberne

”Positivisme” hører til de mest kontroversielle og mangetydige termer i moderne debatter om samfundsvidenskabelig metode. Bredt anvendte lærebøger er på én gang ofte uklare og voldsomt indbyrdes uenige angående positivismens metafysiske, erkendelsmæssige og ideologiske forpligtelser. Denne artikel leverer en receptionshistorisk behandling af positivismen fra dens dobbelte udspring i det 19. århundredes franske og tyske filosofi frem til i dag. Hermed kortlægges en række væsentlige historiske omforståelser og misforståelser som baggrund for nutidens begrebsforvirring. Det påvises efterfølgende, at forskellige positivistiske retningers forhold til videnskabelig objektivisme er en temmelig kompleks og varieret affære. Det er således ufrugtbart at behandle samfundsvidenskabelig positivisme og objektivisme under ét, sådan som det ofte gøres. ENGELSK ABSTRACT: Nikolaj Nottelmann: On positivism and objectivism in thesocial sciences “Positivism” ranks among the most controversial and polysemous terms in modern social scientific methodological discourses. Widely used textbooks in the social sciences are often unclear and mutually inconsistent in their mapping of positivism’s metaphysical, epistemological, and ideological commitments. This article offers a reception history, tracing positivism from its dual roots in 19th century French and German philosophy of science to the present day. The article points out several eventful historical reinterpretations and misinterpretations responsible for the current conceptual confusion. Then the article explains how various positivistic currents have very different and complex relations to scientific objectivism. Thus, despite common practice, it is unfruitful to treat social scientific positivism and objectivism under one heading. Keywords: Positivism; Objectivism; Phenomenalism; Logical Empiricism; Critical Theory

2. The future multiplied

What if there is not one future that can be colonized and controlled, but many possible futures that can be imagined, designed, and created collaboratively? In everyday language we speak of a singular future, which has both conceptual and political implications. ‘The future multiplied’ outlines early future research—influenced by scientific positivism—with its predictive-empirical approach, then discusses pluralism in the social sciences and the shift to multiple futures thinking. Pluralizing the future opens it up for envisioning and creating alternative futures to the status quo. The chapter concludes with a variety of methods used in multiple futures research approaches, including the four-step Swinburne methodology used in strategic foresight applications.