A significant thread in Boris Hessen‟s iconic essay, The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia (1931), is his critique of Newton‟s involving God in his physics. Contra Newton, Hessen believes that nature does not need God in order to function properly. Hessen gives two, quite distinct, „internal‟ explanations of Newton‟s failure to see this. The first explanation is that Newton‟s failure is caused by his believing that motion is a mode instead of an attribute or essence (...) of matter. The second explanation is that Newton‟s failure is owed to his considering mechanical motion as the sole form of the motion of matter: Newton, in Hessen‟s view, did not realize that matter has many forms of motion which constantly transform into one another while conserving energy. In the present paper, I defend the thesis that none of these explanations can account for Newton‟s failure. Hessen‟s first explanation is problematic because even if Newton believed that motion is an attribute or essence of matter, he would still be obliged to involve God in physics. His second explanation fails too because he does not show exactly how the multiplicity and inter-transformation of forms of motion can account for nature‟s organizational structure. (shrink)

To explain Paulin J. Hountondji’s intellectual trajectory, I offer a critical account of his conception of the relationship between science and philosophy. Mapping the shift from his well-known critical writings on ethnophilosophy to his later work on scientific dependency is possible only if we recognize that Hountondji conceives of philosophy as essentially a theory of science (Wissenschaftslehre). Adequately characterizing Hountondji’s metaphilosophical orientation, however, requires greater specificity. The two most influential philosophers on Hountondji’s conception of the relationship between science and philosophy, (...) Edmund Husserl and Louis Althusser, would both have assented to the claim that philosophy is fundamentally a Wissenschaftslehre. However, they each adhered to different (and indeed contradictory) understandings of this claim. While Hountondji explicitly recognizes the dual influence of Husserl and Althusser on his conception of philosophy as a theory of science, he does not attempt to resolve the contradictions between Husserl’s understanding of the relationship between philosophy and science and Althusser’s conception of that relationship. By examining Hountondji’s relatively neglected later writings on scientific dependency, it becomes clear that his emphasis on the significance of the history and sociology of science points toward an Althusserian conception of philosophy qua theory of science rather than a Husserlian conception of what it is for philosophy to be a Wissenschaftslehre. (shrink)

This essay aims to provide an account of the differences between what I call the “Classical Marxist” conception of science which was adhered to by Marx and Engels and further developed by Boris Hessen and others on the one hand, and the conception of science which characterizes “Western Marxism” as it developed through the work of the theorists of the Frankfurt School on the other hand. I argue that Western Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer did not (...) in fact successfully criticize the logical positivist account of the modern natural sciences. Instead I argue that they implicitly accepted the positivists’ characterization of the modern natural sciences (as they interpreted it) and then proceeded to devalue the modern natural sciences on this basis. I also show that Marcuse and Horkheimer, even though they presented themselves as revolting against the alleged “economism” of Classical Marxism, ended up endorsing a view of science which is functionally equivalent to a reductive economistic conception of science. I argue that the Classical Marxists’ conception of science is far richer and far more interesting than either a stereotyped “economistic” conception of science or the Western Marxist conception of modern science as merely an element in a historical process centered on the oppressive universalization of instrumental reasoning. (shrink)

Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität / Archivzentrum UBA Ffm Bestand Na 60 Beschreibung Identifikation (kurz) Laufzeit: 1950-1994 -/- Bestandsgeschichte: Jürgen Habermas (geb. 1929), Professor für Philosophie und Sozio-logie an der Goethe-Universität (1964-1971, 1975-1982 und 1983-1994) und Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung der Lebensbedingungen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Welt, ab 1980 Max-Planck-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, (1971-1981), gilt als einer der bedeutendsten lebenden deutschen Philosophen der Gegenwart. Ha-bermas rezipierte die Kritische Theorie und entwickelte darüber hinausgehende Theo-rien in der Sozialphilosophie. Die Unterlagen wurden von Jürgen Habermas im Frühjahr (...) 2010 an das Archivzentrum abgegeben. Findmittel: verzeichnet Weitere Angaben (Bestand) Zusatzinformationen: Der Vorlass von Jürgen Habermas ist komplett verzeichnet, je-doch nur für die Korrespondenzen 1954 - 1994 online freigeschaltet. Alle anderen Ver-zeichnungseinheiten sind hier nicht einsehbar. Gliederung: 1. Korrespondenzen 2. Lehre und wissenschaftliche Arbeit 3. Monographien und Aufsatzbände 4. Sammlungen -/- https://arcinsys.hessen.de/arcinsys/llist?nodeid=g156869&page=1&reload=true&sorting=41 . (shrink)