The Dutch philosopher of religion Hent de Vries has explored and complicated the boundaries between religion and modern thought in order to create the space for an innovative “minimal theology.” This article reconstructs de Vries's interpretation of the changes in Theodor W. Adorno's thought between Dialectic of Enlightenment and Negative Dialectics in order to demonstrate its fecundity for a philosophical account of otherness. It also examines and defends de Vries's own rhetorical mode of reading texts as an (...) exemplary approach to philosophical dialogue. Finally, however, the essay challenges de Vries's privileging of the religious as the site of ethical relationality and his intentional bracketing of Adorno's critical social theory. (shrink)
De Vries' mutation theory has not stood the test of time. The supposed mutations of Oenothera were in reality complex recombination phenomena, ultimately explicable in Mendelian terms, while instances of large-scale mutations were found wanting in other species. By 1915 the mutation theory had begun to lose its grip on the biological community; by de Vries' death in 1935 it was almost completely abandoned. Yet, as we have seen, during the first decade of the present century it achieved (...) an enormous popularity. As this paper has tried to suggest, one of the principal reasons for this was that de Vries' theory served as a banner around which a whole crowd of disaffected Darwinians or anti-Darwinians could rally. However, not all of those who favored de Vries did so for quite the same reasons. Underlying the multitude of views ran several common threads: a dissatisfaction with current Darwinian theory born out of misunderstanding natural selection, a general misunderstanding of the nature of species, and a prejudice against speculative, nontestable theories in biology.Supporters of de Vries were not the only opponents of Darwinism, nor was the mutation theory the only alternative to natural selection. In the early twentieth century a number of theories had been proposed to explain away the problems which Darwin had left unsolved. There was the idea of orthogenesis, championed by the American paleontologists Cope, Osborn and others; organic selection (or orthoplasy) was championed by M. M. Baldwin and C. Lloyd Morgan; there were the concepts of convergent evolution proposed by Hermann Friedmann, the theory of physiological selection by John George Romanes, and the concepts of reproductive divergence by H. M. Vernon. Virtually none of these men either accepted or were strong supporters of the de Vriesian theory, for each had his own particular ‘ism” to advocate as the major factor in evolution. The existence of a large number of such theories, each purporting to be the explanation, was characteristic of evolutionary theory at the turn of the century. It is to a large extent the emphasis on such fragmentary concepts that retarded development of the comprehensive theory of evolution which emerged in the 1920's and 1930's. For the historian, however, a study of these alternative theories is instructive in trying to understand the inherent difficulties which Dawwinian theory posed to biologists at the time. De Vries' mutation theory serves historically as a mirror to reflect the critical mood of a generation hostile to the theory of natural selection.It has often been claimed that it was impossible to understand the mechanism of natural selection until it could be placed in genetic and mathematical terms. It is certainly true that great strides have been made in population genetics and the treatment of evolutionary concepts with mathematical tools in the last forty years. But the very people who developed the genetical and mathematical approach to evolution were already convinced of the essential correctness of Darwinian theory before they started. Advances in an understanding of Mendelian heredity aided greatly in solving one important issue for evolutionists: the origin of variations. And the rigor with which selection acted could best be studied by observing changes in gene frequencies (calculated mathematically) over a number of generations. But as this paper has shown, two of the basic problems which biologists faced in evaluating Darwinian theory at the turn of the century-the nature of species, and the criteria of what constituted an acceptable explanation in biological science-could not be answered directly by mathematics. What mathematical and genetical theory did do was to help convince the skeptics of the validity of the Darwinian proposition.The change in explanatory criteria which many hailed as de Vries' most important contribution to evolutionary theory seems to have been part of a general emergence of twentieth-century biology from the domination of theorizers in the nineteenth. It also marked the emergence of America from the domination of biological, and particularly evolutionary, influence of Europeans. The change occurred in three areas: in the kinds of questions asked: testable versus non-testable; in the kind of data sought: quantitative versus qualitative; and in the kinds of theories proposed: analytical and reductive—the attempt to see complex processes in terms of simpler components-as opposed to synthetic and speculative. Although ultimately wrong in his idea, de Vries and his theories rode high on the wave of “experimentalism” which was the harbinger of a new era in evolutionary theory. (shrink)
Traveling-wave solutions of the standard and compound form of Korteweg–de Vries–Burgers equations are found using factorizations of the corresponding reduced ordinary differential equations. The procedure leads to solutions of Bernoulli equations of non-linearity 3/2 and 2 (Riccati), respectively. Introducing the initial conditions through an imaginary phase in the traveling coordinate, we obtain all the solutions previously reported, some of them being corrected here, and showing, at the same time, the presence of interesting details of these solitary waves that have (...) been overlooked before this investigation. (shrink)
Summary This note discusses lecture plates at the Hugo de Vries Laboratorium that may be relevant to Hugo de Vries's claim to have independently discovered Mendel's law of segregation. Dating when the plates were made is problematic.
Summary It is argued that Hugo de Vries's conversion to Mendelism did not agree with his previous theoretical framework. De Vries regarded the number of offspring expressing a certain character as a hereditary quality, intrinsic to the state of the pangene involved. His was a shortlived conversion since after the ?rediscovery? he failed to unify his older views with Mendelism. De Vries was never very much of a Mendelian. The usual stories of the Dutch ?rediscovery? need, therefore, (...) a considerable reshaping. (shrink)
This article puts Korteweg and de Vries's manuscript (published in the Philosophical Magazine in 1895) in historical context. The article highlights the importance of the Korteweg?de Vries equation in the development of concepts used in nonlinear physics and also mentions some of their recent applications.
The almost simultaneous and overlapping discoveries of Mendel's forgotten work by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erik von Tschermak gave rise to an intense rivalry, some jealousy, and more than a little illfeeling. De Vries, the first to announce the discovery, has been subjected to the charge that he wished to conceal his discovery and to obtain for himself the credit for having discovered what we now call Mendelism. This charge involves the statement that de Vries (...) gave credit to Mendel only after he had found that others had also read Mendel's papers. The evidence on which this charge is based is sketchy, and we can now show that at least that portion of it that is based on supposed alteration in the proof of de Vries' paper in the Berichte is without foundation. Unfortunately, de Vries gave three different accounts of how he was led to Mendel's work. Two of these involve Liberty Hyde Bailey.Bailey had listed Mendel's papers in a bibliography that he published in 1892 in The Rural Library. Bailey did not include this bibliography in the first edition (1895) of Plant Breeding or in its reprinting in 1896 and 1897. He did include the bibliography in the second edition (1902), but this was after de Vries and others had called attention to Mendel. In 1899, both Bailey and de Vries gave papers at the Hybrid Conference held at Chiswick, England, but we have no record of their having discussed Mendel. What evidence we have indicates that, at this time, neither of them had read Mendel's papers.De Vries wrote to Bailey that it was Bailey's listing of Mendel in the bibliography published in The Rural Library that led to his discovery of Mendel. Later, de Vries wrote to H. F. Roberts that he had first found a reference to Mendel in Bailey's Plant Breeding of 1895, where the bibliographic reference to Mendel's papers was not published. Finally, de Vries told Th. J. Stomps, who succeeded him at the University of Amsterdam, that he had first learned of Mendel early in 1900 from a reprint of Mendel's paper sent him by his friend Professor M. W. Beyerinck. Our present evidence favors Stomp's account as it shows that de Vries had not read Mendel's papers in 1899 but had early in 1900.Attempts to pinpoint de Vries' discovery of Mendel are aided in part, and in part confused, by the fact that he published five relevant papers in 1900. These papers were in press simultaneously, and some of them were altered in proof. Further confusion is due to the fact that at least three of them were published in the reverse order of their acceptance for publication. Unfortunately we do not have the crucial dates for all of the papers.J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 24: 69–75. A definitely pre-Mendelian paper given on 11 July 1899, and published in 1900 (possibly in April). The evidence for an alteration in proof after de Vries had read Mendel is shown by the fact that de Vries described a ratio of 99 to 54 as a 3 to 1 ratio.Rev. gén. botan. 12: 129–137. A Mendelian paper, giving the 3 to 1 ratio in the F2 generation of a cross between starchy and sugary corn. The paper is not dated by de Vries but it was published in the volume, 128 pages ahead of a paper de Vries dated 19 March. In a footnote, de Vries cites a paper by Correns that was published on 25 January, so we can tell that it was written or corrected in proof after this date. Here Correns showed de Vries that he had already read Mendel's paper. Any attempt by de Vries to ignore Mendel or get credit for Mendelism after 25 January would have been senseless. This date was nearly two months before de Vries' Berichte paper was submitted for publication.Ber. deut. botan. Ges. 18: 83–90. Accepted for publication 14 march, published 25 April. This paper gives Mendel full credit and stimulated the publications of Correns and von Tschermak. As de Vries was aware that Correns already knew of Mendel when the paper was first submitted, there was no occasion to alter it in proof.Rev. gén. botan. 12: 257–271. Dated by de Vries 19 March, but the proof was read after June. De Vries cites von Tschermak's paper in the Berichte that was published in June. The Revue paper is a Mendelian paper, and Mendel is cited on the last page.C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 130: 845–847. Accepted for publication 26 March 1900. Reprint received by Correns 21 April. Mendel is not mentioned but de Vries' use of terms told Correns that de Vries had read Mendel's paper. First of the papers to be published, it caused Correns to assume that de Vries wanted the credit that was due Mendel.The three discoverers of Mendel did not form a mutual admiration society. (shrink)
The tendency towards an increasing integration of the informational web into our daily physical world (in particular in so-called Ambient Intelligent technologies which combine ideas derived from the field of Ubiquitous Computing, Intelligent User Interfaces and Ubiquitous Communication) is likely to make the development of successful profiling and personalization algorithms, like the ones currently used by internet companies such as Amazon , even more important than it is today. I argue that the way in which we experience ourselves necessarily goes (...) through a moment of technical mediation. Because of this algorithmic profiling that thrives on continuous reconfiguration of identification should not be understood as a supplementary process which maps a pre-established identity that exists independently from the profiling practice. In order to clarify how the experience of one’s identity can become affected by such machine-profiling a theoretical exploration of identity is made (including Agamben’s understanding of an apparatus , Ricoeur’s distinction between idem - and ipse -identity, and Stiegler’s notion of a conjunctive–disjunctive relationship towards retentional apparatuses ). Although it is clear that no specific predictions about the impact of Ambient Intelligent technologies can be made without taking more particulars into account, the theoretical concepts are used to describe three general scenarios about the way wherein the experience of identity might become affected. To conclude, I argue that the experience of one’s identity may affect whether the cases of unwarranted discrimination resulting from ubiquitous differentiations and identifications within an Ambient Intelligent environment, will become a matter of societal concern. (shrink)
If religion once seemed to have played out its role in the intellectual and political history of Western secular modernity, it has now returned with a vengeance. In this engaging study, Hent de Vries argues that a turn to religion discernible in recent philosophy anticipates and accompanies this development in the contemporary world. Though the book reaches back to Immanuel Kant, Martin Heidegger, and earlier, it takes its inspiration from the tradition of French phenomenology, notably Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion, (...) and, especially, Jacques Derrida. Tracing how Derrida probes the discourse on religion, its metaphysical presuppositions, and its transformations, de Vries shows how this author consistently foregrounds the unexpected alliances between a radical interrogation of the history of Western philosophy and the religious inheritance from which that philosophy has increasingly sought to set itself apart. De Vries goes beyond formal analogies between the textual practices of deconstruction and so-called negative theology to address the necessity for a philosophical thinking that situates itself at once close to and at the farthest remove from traditional manifestations of the religious and the theological. This paradox is captured in the phrase adieu ( à dieu ), borrowed from Levinas, which signals at once a turn toward and a leave-taking from God -- and which also gestures toward and departs from the other of this divine other, the possibility of radical evil. Only by confronting such uncanny and difficult figures, de Vries claims, can one begin to think and act upon the ethical and political imperatives of our day. (shrink)
Este trabalho monográfico busca pesquisar a teologia da Oração Eucarística II, em seus aspectos teológicos e históricos. Para tanto, buscou-se estudar a Anáfora Eucarística de Hipólito de Roma em sua obra – Traditio Apostolica, este é um texto patrístico do século III, onde se encontram alguns aspectos da Liturgia em Roma. Investigando o texto anafórico hipolitano constata-se que a Comissão responsável pela confecção das novas Preces Eucarísticas retoma o texto anafórico de Hipólito de Roma. Nosso artigo busca possibilitar o conhecimento (...) deste dado em perspectiva de uma possível comparação com a Oração Eucarística II do Missal Romano de Paulo VI, esta Anáfora é de 1968, em vista de um ulterior trabalho de pesquisa. Nosso estudo conduz a perceber as interpolações entre a Anáfora de Hipólito e a Prece Eucarística II. Por fim, nosso estudo não vislumbra esgotar o tema abordado, mas possibilitar uma via de novos estudos acerca da Teologia Eucarística a partir da lex orandi. (shrink)
El presente artículo expone la crítica de Putnam sobre la noción de "referencia" en Fodor. Tal noción supone analizar el uso de condicionales contrafácticos y el uso de relaciones de dependencia asimétrica que realiza Fodor en Psico-semántica. De acuerdo con la concepción de Putnam, lo que se propone Fodor es naturalizar el discurso semántico-intencional; esto es, de lo que se trata es de ofrecer una reducción de la relación de referencia que no recurra a términos semántico-intencionales. Putnam concluye que no (...) es posible definir el léxico intencional en términos de un léxico no intencional porque el mero hecho de intentar tal reducción supone ya ejercitar un interés: la intención reductora. (shrink)
Este artículo de homenaje a la Profesora Yolanda Ruano se divide en dos partes. En la primera discuto las críticas que ella realizara a mi libro sobre la diosa Fortuna en las que avanzaba su propio análisis de las complejas relaciones entre razón y fortuna en el pensamiento occidental. En la segunda parte, desde el punto de vista del “giro icónico” en humanidades y ciencias sociales, analizo el caso concreto del auge y desaparición de la diosa Fortuna en la iconografía (...) política de la ciudad de Berlín. A lo largo del siglo XIX la diosa Fortuna desaparece de la escena berlinesa y es sustituida por la diosa Niké o Victoria, que popularmente se interpreta como un Ángel de la Victoria. Este es el marco de la infancia de Walter Benjamin, quien más tarde expresará su visión de la historia con un otro ángel completamente distinto, el Angelus Novus de Paul Klee. (shrink)
El problema fundamental para que la Teoría de la relatividad pueda ser acorde con la filosofía de Kant es el de la utilización de una geometría no euclídea. Que sus principios sean interpretados como juicios sintéticos a priori es, a nuestro entender, un problema secundario. Si queremos que los principios de una ciencia de la naturaleza sean universales y necesarios sin recurrir a dogmatismos, no queda otra posibilidad que entenderlos trascendentalmente. Como se observa en el principio de relatividad, Einstein también (...) pensaba que las leyes físicas son universales y necesarias. Sin embargo, su perspectiva fue más racionalista que crítica. Sea como fuere, si los principios de la Teoría de la relatividad son a priori y enlazan sintéticamente la experiencia posible, esta teoría nos servirá para entender que las geometrías no euclídeas no son ajenas a los planteamientos de Kant, si bien requieren dar un rodeo epistemológico. La doctrina que nos permite fundamentar las geometrías no euclidianas desde la filosofía de Kant la llamamos �Álgebra de la experiencia�. (shrink)
La aparición de las geometrías no euclidianas o astrales parecían contradecir la filosofía de la matemática de Kant. Éste había contemplado la posibilidad de una geometría suprema, pero la desechó por que no se relacionaba sintéticamente con la experiencia. Sin embargo, a principios del siglo XX Albert Einstein desarrollo la Teoría de la relatividad e hizo de ella una teoría de la gravitación. Esta teoría, conocida como Teoría de la relatividad general, confiere al Universo una estructura no euclídea. En este (...) artículo se plantea que tal dotación de sentido físico a un tipo de geometría astral (Geometría esférica o Riemanniana), hace que los recelos... (Leer más) que Kant manifestó hacia una posible geometría diferente de la que se nos presenta en la intuición se disipen. La Teoría de la relatividad restablece, de esta manera, la conexión necesaria entre la nueva geometría y la experiencia. (shrink)
La llamada "moral civil" tiene tres características principales: es una "ética de mínimos", es plenamente racional, y se establece por consenso. Sin embargo, la ética no se mide por el número de preceptos, y los sistemas éticos no pueden ser clasificados por un criterio de cantidad. Más aun, es un punto de partida falso considerarla como un pensamiento racional uniforme frente a una pluralidad de creencias religiosas. Y si el consenso es sólo el resultado de una votación, puede fácilmente convertirse (...) en una dictadura de la mayoría. Por tanto, la ética civil tendría que buscarse en el sentido amplio de la justicia en vez de establecer un sistema nuevo. (shrink)
O presente artigo intenta perquirir o pensamento do abade e místico medieval Joaquim de Fiore (1132-1202), no que tange a concepção escatológica. O abade cisterciense e filósofo místico, defensor do milenarismo e do advento da idade do Espírito Santo deu origem a diversos movimentos filosóficos, com destaque para os joaquimitas. Seu pensamento foi combatido por Tomás de Aquino e condenado pelo Concílio de Laterão de 1215. Partindo de uma releitura dos escritos de Joaquim de Fiore (Liber Concordiae Novi ac Veteris (...) Testamenti, Expositio in Apocalipsim e Psalterium Decem Chordarum) buscar-se-á ponderar o contributo de seu pensamento, a teologia como história trinitário-escatológica. O abade calabrês sente-se autorizado a superar o absolutismo crístico, favorecendo uma concepção mais trinitária da história com acentos escatológicos e apocalípticos. Por fim, o artigo busca contribuir positivamente no retorno aos escritos joaquinistas que muito podem contribuir para a teologia como história humano-Trintária. (shrink)