Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Welfare Economics and the Welfare State in Historical Perspective.Karen Knight - manuscript
    Although the economic thought of Marshall and Pigou was united by ethical positions broadly considered utilitarian, differences in their intellectual milieu led to degrees of difference between their respective philosophical visions. This change in milieu includes the influence of the little understood period of transition from the early idealist period in Great Britain, which provided the context to Marshall’s intellectual formation, and the late British Idealist period, which provided the context to Pigou’s intellectual formation. During this latter period, the pervading (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The anthropology of Hermann Lotze (1817-1881): a comparative approach.Hendrik Vanmassenhove - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Russell’s debt to Lotze.Nikolay Milkov - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (2):186-193.
    Between 1896 and 1898 Russell’s philosophy was considerably influenced by Hermann Lotze. Lotze’s influence on Russell was especially pronounced in introducing metaphysical—anthropological, in particular—assumptions in Russell’s logic and ontology. Three steps in his work reflect this influence. (i) The first such step can be discerned in the Principle of Differentiation, which Russell accepted in the Essay (finished in October 1986); according to this Principle, the objects of human cognition are segmented complexes which have diverse parts (individuals). (ii) After Russell reread (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Lotze and the Classical Pragmatists.Christopher Hookway - 2009 - European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 1 (1):44-52.
    It has been said that, after the fall of modernism, Hermann Lotze (1817-81) reigned as the single most influential philosopher in Germany, perhaps the world” (Sullivan 2008: 2). It is now not easy to take such claims about Lotze seriously, and historical surveys of nineteenth century philosophy treat him as a marginal figure, if they mention him at all. Part of the explanation of this change in his standing becomes clear if we accept Sullivan’s helpful observation that Lotze was a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations