The sustained interdisciplinary debate about neovitalism between two Johns Hopkins University colleagues, philosopher Arthur O. Lovejoy and experimental geneticist H. S. Jennings, in the period 1911–1914, was the basis for their theoretical reconceptualization of scientific knowledge as contingent and necessarily incomplete in its account of nature. Their response to Hans Driesch’s neovitalist concept of entelechy, and his challenge to the continuity between biology and the inorganic sciences, resulted in a historically significant articulation of genetics and philosophy. This study traces (...) the debate’s shift of problem-focus away from neovitalism’s threat to the unity of science – “organic autonomy,” as Lovejoy put it – and toward the potential for development of a nonmechanististic, nonrationalist theory of scientific knowledge. The result was a new pragmatist epistemology, based on Lovejoy’s and Jennings’s critiques of the inadequacy of pragmatism’s account of scientific knowledge. The first intellectual move, drawing on naturalism and pragmatism, was based on a reinterpretation of science as organized experience. The second, sparked by Henri Bergson’s theory of creative evolution, and drawing together elements of Dewey’s and James’s pragmatisms, produced a new account of the contingency and necessary incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Prompted by the neovitalists’ mix of a priori concepts and, in Driesch’s case, and adherence to empiricism, Lovejoy’s and Jennings’s developing pragmatist epistemologies of science explored the interrelation between rationalism and empiricism. (shrink)

W swym fundamentalnym dziele Krytyka władzy sądzenia Immanuel Kant podejmuje problem relacji opisu przyczynowego i teologicznego. Z tą kwestią wiąże trwający od wieków spór między mechanicyzmem a witalizmem. Kant, choć nie był witalistą we właściwym znaczeniu tego słowa, podkreślał konieczność zastosowania metody teleologicznej w opisie pochodzenia, rozwoju i funkcji organizmów żywych. Liczni polscy filozofowie, wraz z ostatnio zmarłym jezuitą Piotrem Lenartowiczem, odwoływali się do Kantowskiej dedukcji związku przyczynowo-skutkowego. W niniejszym artykule podejmiemy próbę przedstawienia Kantowskiej inspiracji w neowitalistycznej koncepcji życia autorstwa (...) Lenartowicza. (shrink)

Vitalism was long viewed as the most grotesque view in biological theory: appeals to a mysterious life-force, Romantic insistence on the autonomy of life, or worse, a metaphysics of an entirely living universe. In the early twentieth century, attempts were made to present a revised, lighter version that was not weighted down by revisionary metaphysics: “organicism”. And mainstream philosophers of science criticized Driesch and Bergson’s “neovitalism” as a too-strong ontological commitment to the existence of certain entities or “forces”, over (...) and above the system of causal relations studied by mechanistic science, rejecting the weaker form, organicism, as well. But there has been some significant scholarly “push-back” against this orthodox attitude, notably pointing to the 18th-century Montpellier vitalists to show that there are different historical forms of vitalism, including how they relate to mainstream scientific practice. Additionally, some trends in recent biology that run counter to genetic reductionism and the informational model of the gene present themselves as organicist. Here, we examine some cases of vitalism in the twentieth century and today, not just as a historical form but as a significant metaphysical and scientific model. We argue for vitalism’s conceptual originality without either reducing it to mainstream models of science or presenting it as an alternate model of science, by focusing on historical forms of vitalism, logical empiricist critiques thereof and the impact of synthetic biology on current theorizing of vitalism. (shrink)

This article displaces the terrain upon which the question of power in modern societies has been framed by reference to the concept of hegemony. It presents a genealogy of power which pays attention to what has been at stake in the shifts in the effectivity of the concept of hegemony for cultural theory from the 1960s, correlating the mutations in the analyses of power to shifts in the analysis of the relations of culture, politics and the economy. Questions of the (...) relation of internality or externality of power with regard to the governed, and issues of counter-conducts and 'counter-hegemonic' struggles will guide the development of this genealogy. The article brings to bear on the issues the point of view of hybrid forms of sovereignty, such as imperial governmentality and implications relating to the emergence of biopolitics in the 19th century. It is argued that the situation today regarding global governance and new forms of rule compels us to re-examine the problem of consent and consensus by turning to the apparatuses for constituting hybrid publics that work through biomedia and new strategies of securitization and insecuritization. (shrink)

Ante la fragmentariedad de las ciencias particulares desarrolladas por el hombre en vísperas del siglo XXI, la obra Cosmos de Humboldt tiene dos puntos interesantes: (a) la sinopsis de los variados y nuevos conocimientos de entonces, y (b) la intención de definir el lugar del hombre en el Cosmos. Una relectura de Humboldt se hace necesaria para conocer su actitud frente a la dispersión del saber, la cual evitaría tener una visión de conjunto del sentido del todo. La tesis de (...) la autora en la primera parte es que dicha concepción se inscribe en el paradigma científico elaborado en la tradición del llamado neovitalismo. Con base en lo anterior, la segunda parte se centra en la relación entre naturaleza y espíritu. (shrink)

This introduction surveys a number of problems for contemporary cultural theory, which arise from the transformations in culture that have been produced by developments ranging from the globalization of third wave capitalism to the emergence of tele-technologies. It summarizes arguments presented by Lash, Thoburn, Johnson, Terranova and Venn, as well as a number of reflections on the state of cultural studies outside Euro-America, to present alternative genealogies of cultural studies and open up new sites for theoretical elaboration.