Machine generated contents note: General editor's preface; Editorial notes and references; Introduction; Notes on text and translation; Chronology; Bibliography; Part I. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason: 1. Introduction; 2. Survey of what is most important in previous teachings about the principle of sufficient reason; 3. Inadequacy of previous accounts and sketch of a new one; 4. On the first class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in (...) it; 5. On the second class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 6. On the third class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 7. On the fourth class of objects for the subject and the form of the principle of sufficient reason governing in it; 8. General remarks and results; Variants in different editions; Collation of the two editions; Part II. On Vision and Colours: 9. On vision; 10. On colours; Variants in different editions; Part III. On Will in Nature: 11. Introduction; 12. Physiology and pathology; 13. Comparative anatomy; 14. Plant physiology; 15. Physical astronomy; 16. Linguistics; 17. Animal magnetism and magic; 18. Sinology; Reference to ethics; Conclusion; Variants in different editions; Glossary of names; Index. (shrink)

The seminal work by one of the most important thinkers of the twentieth century, Physics and Philosophy is Werner Heisenberg's concise and accessible narrative of the revolution in modern physics, in which he played a towering role. The outgrowth of a celebrated lecture series, this book remains as relevant, provocative, and fascinating as when it was first published in 1958. A brilliant scientist whose ideas altered our perception of the universe, Heisenberg is considered the father of quantum physics; he is (...) most famous for the Uncertainty Principle, which states that quantum particles do not occupy a fixed, measurable position. His contributions remain a cornerstone of contemporary physics theory and application. Book jacket. (shrink)

The eleventh-century philosopher and physician Abu Ali ibn Sina was known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. An analysis of the sources and evolution of Avicenna's metaphysics, this book focuses on the answers he and his predecessors gave to two fundamental pairs of questions: what is the soul and how does it cause the body; and what is God and how does He cause the world? To respond to these challenges, Avicenna invented new concepts and distinctions and reinterpreted (...) old ones. The author concludes that Avicenna's innovations are a turning point in the history of metaphysics. Avicenna's metaphysics is the culmination of a period of synthesis during which philosophers fused together a Neoplatonic project with a Peripatetic project. Avicenna also stands at the beginning of a period during which philosophers sought to integrate the Arabic version of the earlier synthesis with Islamic doctrinal theology. Avicenna's metaphysics significantly influenced European scholastic thought, but it had an even more profound impact on Islamic intellectual history—the philosophical problems and opportunities associated with the Avicennian synthesis continued to be debated up to the end of the nineteenth century. (shrink)

Provides a thorough overview of historical and contemporary theories of evolution, discusses key concepts and terms, and argues that our understanding of evolution has changed the beliefs and values of modern humankind. Reprint. 30,000 first printing.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 35.3 (2002) 185-207 [Access article in PDF] Agonism and Aretê Debra Hawhee Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live. What is required for that is to stop courageously at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms, tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial—out of profundity. —Friedrich Nietzsche The profound superficiality about which Nietzsche marvels (...) describes ancient Greek culture as a culture of contact, a culture replete with spectacular gatherings, groping eyes, bending flesh, constantly redoubling so that the superficial became embedded, enfolded into bodies, tones, words. One condition of such enfolding was the agôn, the contest, the encounter that produces struggle and change. As scholars such as Walter Ong, John Poulakos, and Jeffrey Walker have pointed out, agonism provided an important context for the emergence of rhetoric in antiquity. 1 As I will suggest, athletics made available an agonistic model for early rhetors to follow as they developed their art. But the force or quality of this brand of agonism is nonetheless at times surprising, and this unusual character of the agôn was central to the particular development of rhetoric as an art of response.It must be noted from the outset that the agôn is more than the one-on-one sparring that is emphasized in most treatments of the topic. That is, agonism is not merely a synonym for competition, which usually has victory as its goal. For outcome-driven competition, the Greeks used the term athlios, from the verb athleuein, meaning to contend for a prize. The agôn, by contrast, is not necessarily as focused on the outcome as it is on athlios, the more explicit struggle for a prize. Rather, the root meaning of agôn is "gathering" or "assembly." The Olympic Games, for example, depended on the gathering of athletes, judges, and spectators alike. Put simply, whereas athlios emphasizes the prize and hence the victor, agôn emphasizes the [End Page 185] event of the gathering itself—the encounter rather than the division between the opposing sides. To be sure, the "gathering" force of agôn to some extent entails—and is enabled by—the victory. One aim of this exploration, though, is less to consider agonism's teleological, or victory-driven side, and more to foreground the agonistic encounter itself. I will suggest that this encounter constitutes the more pervasive agonal dynamic, a dynamic that also figures prominently in the development of rhetoric as an agonistic force.John Poulakos's important book on the sophists points out the agonistic connection between rhetoric and athletics (32-39), arguing that the sophists effectively "turned rhetoric into a competitive enterprise" (35) and that athletics provided a "rich vocabulary" for the rhetorical art. Poulakos's account, however, focuses on the athlios side of agonism, the "victory at all cost" mentality. Yet the "gathering" force of the agôn inheres as well, most notably in the very structure of rhetorical situations and their dependence on an assembly, but also in the training and production of a rhetorical subject. The realm of training, interestingly, shows most clearly the close relation between athlios and agôn, as a drive for the prize depends on the gathering force of agonistic logic from the very beginning. Agôn is also connected to the verb agein, which is generally translated "to lead," but in some instances is linked to training and can be translated "to bring up, train, educate" (e.g., Plato's Laws 782d). So the word agôn suggests movement through struggle, a productive training practice wherein subjective production takes place through the encounter itself. As Nietzsche suggests, the Greeks produced themselves through active struggle; their pedagogy depended on agonism (1974, 58; see also Poulakos, 33).Taking seriously rhetoric's emergence in the context of the agôn requires a reconfiguration of rhetoric as an agonistic encounter. That is, for the sophists at least, agonism produces rhetoric as a gathering of forces—cultural, bodily, and discursive, thus problematizing the easy portrayal of rhetoric as telos-driven persuasion or as a... (shrink)

supplies English-language readers with a crucial missing link in Nietzsche's development by reproducing the text of a lecture series delivered by the young philosopher at the University of Basel between 1872 and 1876. In these lectures, Nietzsche surveys the Greek philosophers from Thales to Socrates, establishing a new chronology for the progression of their natural scientific insights. He also roughly sketches concepts such as the will to power, eternal recurrence, and self-overcoming and links them to specific pre-Platonics.

A theoretical physicist and feminist theorist, Karen Barad elaborates her theory of agential realism, a schema that is at once a new epistemology, ontology, and ethics.

Takozvane »duhovne znanosti« postale su već krajem prve polovice XX. stoljeća krajnje dvojben pojam. Svoj pravi procvat »duhovne znanosti« doživljavaju u doba njemačkog idealizma i posebice romantike, potom kod W. Diltheya, G. Mischa, E. Rothachkera i ne naposljetku kod H.-G. Gadamera. Stoga je nakana prvoga dijela ovoga rada skicirati najprije to idealističko-romantičarsko-hermeneutičko shvaćanje »duhovnih znanosti« i njihovu »sistematiku«, gdje u središtu stoji ideja etike kao »znanosti« povijesti i ideja vraćanja humanističkoj tradiciji kao izvoru duhovnosti svih ljudskih objektivacija. Drugi dio priloga (...) posvećen je razlozima raspada »duhovnih znanosti« na »humanističke« i »društvene«, pri čemu je naglasak stavljen na vladajuća gibanja u filozofiji XX. stoljeća, što bi u konačnici trebalo dovesti i do radikaliziranja temeljnoga pitanja ovoga priloga: s kojim bi se pravom bilo koja od današnjih »društvenih« ili »humanističkih « znanosti mogla nazvati »duhovnom«? U zaključnom, trećem dijelu, treba pokušati odgovoriti na pitanje na koji način suvremena filozofija svojom pluriperspektivnošću doista može pripomoći da »društvene« i »humanističke« znanosti ponovno zadobiju dostojanstvo »duhovnih znanosti«, dakako oslobođene svih svjetonazorskih i ideoloških pretpostavki. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to explain that it is not useful to grasp all transformations at the University during last decades under terms of the struggle between evil politics and innocent academy, because universities were involved in formation and promotion of reforming guidelines, and went through inside ideological split and political fight during this process. Also, it is not appropriate to find neoliberalism an enemy which has to be defied and defeated with resources of the critique of ideology, (...) because this leads into the conflict between ideology and science . Here too, universities were involved in the process, be it in foundations of neoliberalism, be it in destruction of scientific totality and autonomy. The parallelism between art and science as two autonomous domains of modernity, and their postmodern turn which left them without solid ground of inherited autonomy, will be exposed to support this thesis. Finally, University used to be the special and autonomous workshop with its own laws of procedure, secluded from market economy, to become educational factory, and now, finally, the enterprise. There is no way back. But is there a way out? Contemporary critique of political economy is where we should look at least for a start, and united appearance of students and teachers could give some power to bring academy back into hands of those to whom it originally belongs.Cilj je ovog rada objasniti da nije svrsishodno shvaćati sve transformacije na sveučilištu posljednjih desetljeća u pogledu borbe između zle politike i nevine akademije, jer su sveučilišta bila uključena u oblikovanje i promoviranje smjernica reforme, te su prošla unutarnje ideološku podjelu i političku borbu tijekom ovog procesa. Također, nije prikladno smatrati neoliberalizam neprijateljem od kojeg se treba obraniti i poraziti ga resursima kritike ideologije, budući da to vodi u sukob ideologije i znanosti . Usto su sveučilišta bila uključena u taj proces, bilo u utemeljenju neoliberalizma, bilo u destrukciji znanstvene cjelokupnosti i autonomije. Paralelizam između umjetnosti i znanosti kao dvije autonomne domene moderne, kao i postmoderni okret koji im je izmaknuo čvrsti temelj naslijeđene autonomije, bit će razmatran kako bi podupro ovu tezu. U konačnici, sveučilište je nekada bilo posebna i autonomna radionica s vlastitim zakonima procedure, odvojena od tržišne ekonomije, da bi prvo postalo obrazovna tvornica, a danas konačno i poduzeće. Povratka nema. No postoji li izlaz? Suvremena kritika političke ekonomije je mjesto koje bi barem za početak trebali razmotriti, a ujedinjen nastup studenata i nastavnika bi mogao dati neku moć za povratak akademije u ruke onih kojima je izvorno pripadala. L’objectif de cet article est d’expliquer qu’il n’est pas opportun de penser à toutes les transformations survenues à l’Université depuis les dernières décennies en termes de confrontation entre une politique malveillante et une université innocente, car les universités ont été impliquées dans la formation et la promotion des lignes directrices de réforme et ont connu une division idéologique et une lutte politique interne au cours de ce processus. En outre, il ne convient pas de considérer le néolibéralisme comme ennemi qu’il faut défier et battre avec les ressources de la critique de l’idéologie, car cela mène au conflit entre l’idéologie et la science . Là aussi, les universités ont été impliquées dans le processus, que ce soit dans le fondement du néolibéralisme ou la déstruction de la totalité et de l’autonomie scientifiques. Pour soutenir cette thèse, on exposera le parallèle entre l’art et la science en tant que deux domaines autonomes de la modernité, ainsi que leur tournant post-moderne qui les a laissés sans le fondement solide d’une autonomie héritée. Enfin, l’université fut autrefois un atelier singulier et autonome avec ses propres règles de procédure, séparé de l’économie de marché, avant de devenir d’abord une usine d’enseignement, puis finalement aujourd’hui une entreprise. Il n’y a pas de retour. Mais y a-t-il une porte de sortie ? L’endroit où nous devrions regarder, du moins pour commencer, est la critique contemporaine de l’économie politique, tandis qu’un bloc uni d’étudiants et d’enseignants pourrait dispenser un certain pouvoir pour ramener l’académie dans le giron de ceux à qui elle appartenait initialement. Das Bestreben dieses Papers ist die Erläuterung, dass es nicht segensreich ist, sämtliche Transformationen an der Universität in den vergangenen Dezennien unter Bezug auf die Zwiespältigkeit zwischen der bösartigen Politik und der schuldlosen Akademie auszulegen, denn die Universitäten waren an der Gestaltung bzw. Förderung der reformerischen Leitlinien beteiligt und durchliefen eine innere ideologische Spaltung wie auch ein politisches Gefecht im Laufe dieses Prozesses. Darüber hinaus ist es deplatziert, den Neoliberalismus als Feind auszuweisen, gegen den man vermöge der Ideologiekritik aufzubegehren und welchen man zu bezwingen hat, da dies zum Zerwürfnis zwischen Ideologie und Wissenschaft führt. Auch diesbezüglich waren die Universitäten in diesen Fortgang involviert, sei es in der Gründung des Neoliberalismus, sei es in der Destruktion der wissenschaftlichen Totalität und Autonomie. Um der angesprochenen These Rückhalt zu verschaffen, wird die Parallelität zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft als zwei autonomen Domänen der Modernität als auch deren postmoderne Kehrtwende erörtert, die ihnen festen Boden der ererbten Autonomie entzog. Schließlich fungierte die Universität ehedem als spezielle und autonome Werkstatt mit eigenen Verfahrensvorschriften, abgesondert von der Marktwirtschaft, um zuerst zu einer Bildungsfabrik und derweil letztendlich zum Unternehmen auszuarten. Es gibt keinen Weg zurück. Ist jedoch ein Ausweg in Sicht? Die zeitgenössische Kritik der politischen Ökonomie muss der erste ultimative Gegenstand unseres Augenmerks werden, und der vereinigte Auftritt der Studenten und Lehrer könnte einigen Schwung zur Rückkehr der Akademie in die Hände jener bringen, denen sie ursprünglich zugehörte. (shrink)

Knowledge has become a resource that the modern society increasingly wishes to exploit in the market of competitiveness. One of the first requirements on the evaluation list is usefulness and competitiveness of the profile of graduates in the workforce market. The Bologna study Process, which strived to enable modern university to successfully prepare the modern student to enter the workforce market, in many scholars opinion did not achieve this goal. Despite having more resources invested in higher education, the society of (...) knowledge is increasingly further from our reach. Additionally, modern university is facing new methodological and technological challenges in the process of education. Must one acknowledge the anthropological findings of M. Wesch about the new “internet” human, who not only has a different path to knowledge, but also defines this knowledge differently? The discussion finds that methodological change is not enough; instead we need to re-evaluate knowledge as well as the role of student and teacher. One of the solutions is a new community of teachers and scholars supported by imagination, where cooperation is a way of work and life.Znanje je postalo resurs koji moderno društvo sve više želi iskorištavati na tržištu konkurentnosti. Jedan od prvih zahtjeva na evaluacijskom popisu je korisnost i konkurentnost profila diplomiranih na tržištu rada. Bolonjski proces, koji je težio omogućiti modernom sveučilištu uspješnu pripremu modernih studenata za ulazak na tržište radne snage, prema mišljenju mnogih istraživača, nije postigao ovaj cilj. Unatoč sve većem ulaganju resursa u visoko obrazovanje, društvo znanja je sve više izvan dohvata. Usto, moderno sveučilište se suočava s novim metodološkim i tehnološkim izazovima u obrazovnom procesu. Moramo li prihvatiti antropološka istraživanja M. Wescha o novom »internetskom« čovjeku, koji ne samo da ima drugačije putove prema znanju, nego također znanje drugačije definira? Rasprava pokazuje da sama metodološka promjena nije dovoljna; umjesto toga trebamo ponovno procijeniti znanje kao i ulogu studenta i profesora. Jedno od rješenja je nova zajednica profesora i studenata nošena imaginacijom, gdje je suradnja način rada i života.La connaissance est devenue une ressource que la société moderne souhaite de plus en plus exploiter sur le marché de la compétitivité. L’une des premières exigences figurant sur la liste d’évaluation est l’utilité et la compétitivité du profil des diplômés sur le marché du travail. Le processus de Bologne, qui visait à rendre l’université moderne capable de préparer l’étudiant moderne à entrer sur le marché du travail, n’a pas, d’après l’avis de beaucoup de chercheurs, atteint cet objectif. Malgré davantage de moyens investis dans l’enseignement supérieur, la société de la connaissance est de plus en plus hors de portée. En outre, l’université moderne est confrontée à de nouveaux défis méthodologiques et technologiques dans le processus d’enseignement. Doit-on reconnaître la recherche anthropologique de M. Wesch sur le nouvel homme de l’« internet » lequel non seulement emprunte un chemin différent vers la connaissance, mais définit également cette connaissance d’une manière différente ? La discussion montre que le changement méthodologique n’est pas suffisant ; nous avons plutôt besoin de réévaluer aussi bien la connaissance que les rôles de l’étudiant et de l’enseignant. L’une des solutions réside dans une nouvelle communauté d’enseignants et d’universitaires, portée par l’imagination, dont le mode de travail et de vie est la coopération.Das Wissen hat sich zur Ressource verwandelt, welche seitens der modernen Gesellschaft auf dem Konkurrenzmarkt zunehmend ausgebeutet wird. Eine der ersten Voraussetzungen auf der Bewertungsliste ist die Nützlichkeit und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Graduiertenprofile auf dem Arbeitskräftemarkt. Der Bologna-Prozess mit dessen Ausrichtung, einer zukunftsweisenden Universität die Befähigung des modernen Studenten für ein gelungenes Betreten des Arbeitsmarktes zu ermöglichen, hatte nach Ansicht mancherlei Gelehrter ihr Ziel verfehlt. Trotz aufgestockter Investitionsmittel im Bereich der Hochschulbildung entschwindet die Wissensgesellschaft immer deutlicher außerhalb unserer Reichweite. Fernerhin ist die zeitgenössische Universität genötigt, den jüngsten methodologischen und technologischen Herausforderungen innerhalb des Bildungsprozesses ins Auge zu sehen. Muss man den anthropologischen Erkenntnissen des. M. Wesch über den neuen „Internet-Menschen“ beistimmen, der nicht nur ungleiche Wege zum Wissen einschlägt, sondern es gleichzeitig anders definiert? Die Erörterung ergibt, dass die methodologische Herausforderung allein insuffizient ist; stattdessen müssen wir eine Neubewertung des Wissens wie auch der Rolle des Studenten und des Lehrers vornehmen. Einer der Auswege heißt die neue, durch Einbildungskraft getragene Gemeinschaft der Lehrer und Studenten, wo die Zusammenarbeit eine Arbeits- bzw. Daseinsweise darstellt. (shrink)