In the near future three anniversaries are to be celebrated: Hans-Joachim Schoeps, German-Jewish scholar and full Professor of Religious and Intellectual History, would have been 100 years old in January 2009. Jointly together with Ernst Benz, full Professor of Theology at the University of Marburg, Hans-Joachim Schoeps launched the Journal of religious and intellectual history, which is now entering its 60th volume. Also, the Scientific Association for religious and intellectual history, which was as well founded by (...)Hans-Joachim Schoeps, is going to celebrate its 50th anniversary. The article depicts biographical data and scholarly highlights of Schoeps, and combines them with a view to the development of ZRGG and GGG. (shrink)
This paper addresses the question, which sex ratio will evolve in a population that is subject to mutation and drift. The problem is analyzed using a simulation model as well as analytical methods. A detailed simulation model for the evolution of a population's allele distribution shows that for the sex ratio game a wide spectrum of different population states may evolve from on the one hand a monomorphic state with one predominant allele and with all other alleles suppressed by the (...) forces of selection, to on the other hand a polymorphism determined by recurrent mutations. Which of these states will evolve depends on the population size, the mating system and the rate of mutations. For the sex ratio game the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), as defined by evolutionary game theory, can only predict the population sex ratio but not the underlying stable population state. A comparison of different approaches to the problem shows that false predictions of the stable population states might result from two simplifying assumptions that are fairly common in evolutionary biology:a) it is assumed that mutations are rare events and there is never more than one mutant gene present in a population at any one time; b) a deterministic relationship is assumed between the fitness assigned to an individual's strategy and the individual's contribution to the gene pool of future generations. (shrink)
For an appropriate understanding of Leibniz's calculus the concept of differential is a crucial one. In Die Differentialrechnung nach Leibniz -eine Rekonstruktion (published in this journal in 2001) the calculus differentialis of Leibniz was analysed. In this paper we deal with the first systematic formulation of the calculus integralis, the Lectiones mathematicae de methodo integralium aliisque of Johann Bernoulli from 1691/92. It will be pointed out that Leibniz's theory is consistent and can be reconstructed as an empirical theory within the (...) structuralist metatheory. (shrink)
In the history of mathematics Leibniz as one of the scientists who developed the calculus of differentials has an outstanding position. However, it is difficult to reconstruct his theory in a consistent way. The main problem is the concept of differential. For an adequate understanding of this concept it is necessary to analyze how it is used. In this article we deal with the first systematic formulation of Leibniz' calculus, the Lectiones de calculo differentialium of Johann Bernoulli from 1691/92. It (...) will be proved that Leibniz's theory is consistent and can be reconstructed as an empirical theory - concerning physical curves - within the structuralist metatheory. The concept of differential is a theoretical one in respect to this theory. (shrink)
Im Wintersemester 1967/68 bin ich nach Göttingen gegangen, um dort ein Studium der Germanistik, Klassischen Philologie und Philosophie zu beginnen. Schon im zweiten Semester habe ich die Philosophie anstelle der Germanistik als Hauptfach genommen. Die Philosophie in Göttingen wurde damals von Günther Patzig und Erhard Scheibe vertreten, der eine die Kapazität der klassischen griechischen Philosophie in Deutschland, der andere – mit einem massiven Hintergrund in der Mathematik und Physik – in der Wissenschaftstheorie und Logik zu Hause.
Ever since the proposal of Giovanni Reale, it has been useful to distinguish three “paradigms,” or models of “normal science,” in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, in the history of Platonic scholarship, each of which are relatively distinct from the others in their historical succession: the Neoplatonic model which persisted into modern times; the “Romantic” model which replaced it and whose foundations were formulated around 1800 by Friedrich Schlegel and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and which was until recently the guiding model for history, philology (...) and philosophy; and lastly the model that takes both the literary and indirect Platonic traditions, integrates them, uses them to supplement one another, and so in part preserves and in part modifies the second model by a perspectival “paradigm shift”. The new research program justified itself in view of the surplus of anomalies left by the old program, which had to leave certain central portions of the tradition unexplained or else forcefully reinterpret them. Meanwhile, the new program promised to progressively work off the explanatory deficit. The new program was also able to emerge as an alternative because the explanatory abilities of the old program had visibly declined into a state of stagnation and exhaustion. That program had not achieved the hoped-for explanatory goals: neither the extraction of the philosophical content of Platonic dialogues by an analysis of form, nor the evaluation of the relative chronology of the dialogues for the inner development of their philosophical thought. (shrink)