According to Peter Harrison's book The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science modern science came into existence as a result of the emphasis of Protestants on the literal sense of the Scripture, their refusal of the earlier symbolic or allegorical interpretation, and their efforts at fixing the meaning of the biblical text in which each passage was to be ascribed a single and unique meaning. This article tries to summarize the most significant critiques of Harrison's hypothesis and to (...) acknowledge their legitimacy. However, the alternative explanation of the emergence of modern science as a result of disputes over the biblical interpretation and the subsequent discovery of the ambiguous character of the ordinary verbal language is not fully satisfactory either. (shrink)

The article picks up the threads of especially Martin Muslow’s 1990s research and describes the distinctiveness of the “relational metaphysics of resemblance” in the middle of the seventeenth century. The late Renaissance metaphysical outlines, carried out in the Comenius circle, are characteristic for their relationality, accent on universal resemblance, providentialism, pansensism, sensualism, triadism – and also for their effort to define metaphysical terms properly. While Comenians share the last – and only the last – feature with Cartesians, they differ in (...) the other features. Therefore, Cartesians and Comenians cannot come to terms in the issue of the proper definitions either. Quite on the contrary, they oppose each other on this issue. By means of Johann Clauberg’s criticism of Georg Ritschel and René Descartes’s only supposedly “mysterious” and “solipsist” second meditation, the article turns a Cartesian mirror to the Comenian metaphysical project. In its light, the definitions of Georg Ritschel, Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld and Jan Amos Comenius turn out to be unacceptable for Cartesians (and also for Thomists and, in part, for Baconians). Despite their superficially Aristotelian-scholastic appearance, their content is notably Paracelsian-Campanellian (with a Timplerian foundation). Even though Comenian definitions of metaphysical terms had been refused and refuted by Cartesians, they experienced a second lifespan in their robust influence on Leibniz and Newton. (shrink)

In this article, I first reconsider the personal links between Comenius and Leibniz, searching for how Comenian texts and ideas may have reached Leibniz. For that reason, I outline a constellation of thinkers within Central European Protestantism, since a vast majority of the important intellectuals with some noteworthy link both to Comenius and Leibniz were based there. Second, I investigate more closely one particular intellectual link between Comenius and Leibniz, namely their common combinatorial standpoint, because the striking parallels, connections and (...) similarities between Comenius’s and Leibniz’s ideas on combinatorics, universal language and relational metaphysics have been largely overlooked thus far. (shrink)

Článek se soustředí na téma, jemuž dosud mezi českými badateli nebyla věnována patřičná pozornost. Uvádí do českého prostředí přírodní filosofii Tommasa Campanelly OP (1568–1639), přičemž se zaměřuje na jeho kosmologii, astrologii, magii, medicínu a prorocké vize. Jsou zdůrazněny některé z jeho antiaristotelských tezí a v neposlední řadě je poukázáno na zajímavé paralely, analogie a průniky se staršími autory (Dante, Ficino…) i současníky (Komenský, Galileo…). Závěrečné tvrzení, že Campanella nepatří k průkopníkům moderní vědy, ale spíše k starší renesanční hermeticko-magicko-platónské tradici, by (...) nemělo zastínit literární a rétorickou kvalitu jeho spisů, především jeho metaforiku a obraznost. (shrink)

Článek se soustředí na téma, jemuž dosud mezi českými badateli nebyla věnována patřičná pozornost. Uvádí do českého prostředí přírodní filosofii Tommasa Campanelly OP (1568–1639), přičemž se zaměřuje na jeho kosmologii, astrologii, magii, medicínu a prorocké vize. Jsou zdůrazněny některé z jeho antiaristotelských tezí a v neposlední řadě je poukázáno na zajímavé paralely, analogie a průniky se staršími autory (Dante, Ficino…) i současníky (Komenský, Galileo…). Závěrečné tvrzení, že Campanella nepatří k průkopníkům moderní vědy, ale spíše k starší renesanční hermeticko-magicko-platónské tradici, by (...) nemělo zastínit literární a rétorickou kvalitu jeho spisů, především jeho metaforiku a obraznost. (shrink)

Recenze: Peter HARRISON - Ronald L. NUMBERS - Michael H. SHANK Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press 2011, 416 s.