In this paper I argue that Leibniz' (L.) concept of entelechy, though L. himself believes to have derived it directly from Aristotle, does not correspond exactly to the Aristotelian concept. The main difference between the Aristotelian and the Leibnizian concept may be explained as follows: Whereas Aristotle uses "entelecheia" to designate a property possessed by living organisms, L. takes it to be a generic term for souls and other monads. It is further argued that Aristotle's somewhat intricate argument in (...) De Anima II 1 has contributed to the misunderstanding of the Aristotelian term, a misunderstanding starting already with the Aristotelian commentators Themistius, Philoponus and Simplicius. L. took his concept from the tradition of the commentators which he knew through the Italian humanist Ermolao Barbaro. (shrink)

The editors, Thomas Nenon and Hans Rainer Sepp, of Husserl's Aufsdtze und Vortri~ge (1922-1937) (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989) have given us a fascinating present with quite a few surprises. I would like to take this occasion to thank them publicly for their able and selfless labors. Here we have Husserl attempting to address himself to a large philosophically untrained audience for funds of which he had dire need: he had two children getting married and the real value of his inflated German (...) annual income was worth $160.00. But, as he told a friend, what he was doing was as genuine philosophical work as what he would do for his Jahrbuch ffir Philosophie und phginomenologische Forschung. In many ways it is regrettable the work did not come to full fruition for the publication in the Jahrbuch because then the tensions and ambiguities we find here would have been perhaps less severe. (shrink)

Is life a simple result of a conjunction of physico-chemical processes? Can be reduced to a mere juxtaposition of spatially determined events? What epistemology or world-view allows us to comprehend it? Aristotle built a novel philosophical system in which nature is a dynamical totality which is in constant movement. Life is a manifestation of it, and is formed and governed by the psyche. Psyche is the organizational principle of the different biological levels: nutritive, perceptive and intelective. Driesch's crucial experiment provided (...) empirical proof of the principle of life, which he called entelechy. Entelechy is an intensive manifoldness and cannot be comprehended by the usual extensive parameters. The entelechian's own ambiance is duration. This allows the reintroduction of the concept of teleology in the sphere of the living, understood not as a final cause, but as an order born from desire and leading to action. (shrink)

This article pursues Rahner’s idea that the Holy Spirit has the role of “Spirit of Christ” even before the Incarnation, namely as “entelechy” directed to the Christ event. In the article, particular use is made of a biblical text hitherto not invoked in this connection, namely 1 Peter 1:11, from which a biblical base for this theology is developed. The article also investigates Teilhard de Chardin’s theory of evolution encompassing the world religions and Christianity, the absolute religion. The idea (...) of the Spirit of Christ as entelechy is clarified and refined by application of the author’s construct of the “return” model of the Trinity, in which the Son does not just come forth from the Father, but returns to him in the power of the Spirit (see his newly published book, Deus Trinitas). Before, and in reparation for, the Son’s historical return to the Father, in Christ, the Spirit, precisely as entelechy, has to seek him in history, that is, through the creation and evolution of the cosmos, the arrival of humans, the consequent and new operation of the Spirit as grace, and the history of Israel culminating in the lives of Mary and, finally, Jesus, in whom this operation finds its final goal. Moreover, the role of the Spirit as entelechy complements and forms a unity with that of the same Spirit (again “Spirit of Christ”) as sent historically by the glorified Christ upon the Church, and continues even after the Incarnation, in leading to Christ (as “anonymous Christians”) men and women of goodwill, including those belonging to the world religions who have not yet had the gospel effectively preached to them. Finally, the paper notes that it covers some of the same ground as the Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, but in a different way, namely as instructed by the work of Teilhard and Rahner. (shrink)

Recent studies of power have become increasingly quantitative and normative and have shifted the focus of inquiry away from the examination of power itself. Without discarding those studies, this book reinjects the phenomenological dimension into them.

Implicit Rhetoric examines the implications of Kenneth Burke's concept of entelechy, the most transcendent term in Burke's philosophical system. The author discusses Burke's ideas on the existence of 'implicit' rhetoric which goes against Aristotle's view that rhetoric includes an essentially 'explicit' view of criticism.

Since Aristotle the central question in biology was the origin of organic form; a question put in the backyard by neo-Darwinism that considers organic form as a side effect of the interactions between genes and their products. On the other hand, the fashionable notion of self-organization also fails to provide a true causal explanation for organic form. For Aristotle form is both a cause and the principle of intelligibility and this coupled to the classical concepts of potentiality and actuality provides (...) a rational framework,currently embodied in the contemporary concept of ‘attractor’, for understanding the origin of organic form. (shrink)

Le progrès rapide des recherches biologiques a conduit, vers le milieu du XXe siècle, à la distinction de la notion de gène1, puis, par l’intermédiaire de celle de structure2, à la promotion et à la mise en valeur du facteur structurel nommé ADN3, entendu comme déterminant d’avance tant le développement de l’organisme vivant que les caractères particuliers qui lui sont..

Aristotle was the first antient philosopher who systematically represented the doctrine of the soul (psychology) in the treatise “On the Soul” (De Anima) and in the minor natural science works called Parva naturalia, among which the most significant treatises are “De Sensu et Sensibilibus” and “De Memoria et Reminiscentia”. Aristotle considers psychology as the doctrine that explores the soul and its properties. He defines the soul as the principle of life, but the notion of life varies greatly depending on whether (...) we are talking about a plant, an animal or a person. This Aristotle’s approach distinguishes his psychology from modern ones. Aristotle’s psychology considers all animate entities, and not just those who possess mind, that is, human beings. Aristotle gave a general definition of the soul as the first entelechy of the organic body. He also identified three types of souls depending on their functions: nutritive, perceptive and intellective. Each type of soul has certain properties and capacities. The nutritive soul nourishes, due to which a living being grows and lives, the perceptive soul perceives, and the intellective soul thinks. (shrink)

Defending the ancient thesis, that being and the true, or being and manifestation, are necessarily inseparable, is at the heart of transcendental phenomenology. The transcendental “reduction” disengages the basic “natural” naïve doxastic belief which permits the world to appear as essentially indifferent to the agency of manifestation. The massive work of transcendental phenomenology is showing the agency of manifestation of “absolute consciousness.” Yet the foundations of this agency of manifestation are pervaded by issues which, when addressed, reveal that the question (...) of a “second absolute” is basic and opens Husserlian phenomenology to metaphysical questions. This has to do not merely with the teleology of the agency of manifestation, i.e., the “whither” of the teleology of presencing, but also, in some sense, with the constituting “whence” of the transcendental I. Husserl argues for the teleology of truth pointing to both a divine subject as well as a divine entelechy. (shrink)

The most original aspect of Hedwig Conrad-Martius’ research is her interpretation of nature, performed through the phenomenological method. She pinpoints the very essences of the natural phenomena, discovering entelechies inside them and a trans-physical dimension. She reads the evolution of nature in a new way, against the deterministic interpretation of it. Inside nature one can discover many levels, qualitatively different. The human being participates to all of them, but his/her peculiarity is linked to the mental–spiritual life.

Life and the living (on Aristotelian biohorror) -- Supernatural horror as the paradigm for life -- Aristotle's De anima and the problem of life -- The ontology of life -- The entelechy of the weird -- Superlative life -- Life with or without limits -- Life as time in Plotinus -- On the superlative -- Superlative life I: Pseudo-Dionysius -- Negative vs. affirmative theology -- Superlative negation -- Negation and preexistent life -- Excess, evil, and non-being -- Superlative life (...) II: Eriugena -- Negation in the periphyseon -- The quaestio de nihilo: on nothing -- The quaestio de nihilo: superlative nothing -- Dark intelligible abyss -- Apophasis -- The apophatic logic -- Negation in Frege and Ayer -- Negation vs. subtraction in Badiou -- Negation and contradiction in Priest -- The dialetheic vitalism of negative theology -- Ellipses: Suhraward and the luminous void -- Univocal creatures -- On spiritual creatures -- Life as form in Aristotle -- The concept of the creature -- Univocity I: Duns Scotus vs. Aquinas -- Univocity in Aquinas' Summa theologica -- Univocity in Duns Scotus' Opus oxoniense -- The common nature of the creature -- Univocity II: Duns Scotus vs. Henry of Ghent -- Univocity in Henry of Ghent -- Negative vs. privative indetermination -- Absolute indetermination -- Univocity III: Deleuze's scholasticism three variations -- Spinoza et le problème de l'expression -- Différence et répétition -- Cours de Vincennes -- Univocal creatures -- Ellipses: Dgen and uncreated univocity -- Dark pantheism -- Everything and nothing -- Life as spirit in Aquinas -- The concept of the divine nature -- Immanence I: Eriugena's periphyseon -- Natura and the unthought -- Universal life -- Four statements on pantheism -- Immanence II: Duns Scotus' reportatio Ia -- Univocal immanence -- Actual infinity -- The pathology of the triple primacy -- Immanence III: Nicholas of Cusa's De docta ignorantia -- The coincidence of opposites -- The folds of life -- Absolute vs. contracted pantheism -- Speculative pantheism (Deleuze's interlocutors) -- Pantheism and pure immanence -- The insubordination of immanence in Deleuze -- Scholia I: the isomorphism of univocity and immanence -- Scholia II: the vitalist logic of common notions -- Scholia III: the life of substance -- Dark pantheism -- Ellipses: Wang Yangming and idealist naturalism -- Logic and life (on Kantian teratology) -- The wandering line from Aristotle to Kant -- Critique of life -- Spectral life and speculative realism -- Ontotheology in Kant, atheology in Bataille -- The night land. (shrink)

The fundamental tenet of modern empiricism is the view that all non-analytic knowledge is based on experience. Let us call this thesis the principle of empiricism. [1] Contemporary logical empiricism has added [2] to it the maxim that a sentence makes a cognitively meaningful assertion, and thus can be said to be either true or false, only if it is either (1) analytic or self-contradictory or (2) capable, at least in principle, of experiential test. According to this so-called empiricist criterion (...) of cognitive meaning, or of cognitive significance, many of the formulations of traditional metaphysics and large parts of epistemology are devoid of cognitive significance--however rich some of them may be in non-cognitive import by virtue of their emotive appeal or the moral inspiration they offer. Similarly certain doctrines which have been, at one time or another, formulated within empirical science or its border disciplines are so contrived as to be incapable of test by any conceivable evidence; they are therefore qualified as pseudo- [p. 42:] hypotheses, which assert nothing, and which therefore have no explanatory or predictive force whatever. This verdict applies, for example, to the neo-vitalist speculations about entelechies or vital forces, and to the "telefinalist hypothesis" propounded by Lecomte du Noüy. (shrink)

The key term of Aristotle’s teleology is “the cause for the sake of which”. Aristotle discusses in several key texts the fact that this has two different senses: aim and beneficiary. The aim of a knife is cutting, but the beneficiary is the person who does, or orders, the cutting. Aristotle uses this distinction to show how natural things have both aims and are beneficiaries of their functions. He also shows how non-natural things, such as god, can operate as causes (...) for the sake of which, but not as beneficiaries. Eternal things cannot be beneficiaries, because they cannot undergo change. Thus, the beneficiaries of Aristotle’s teleology are the elements, plants, and animals that can both undergo change and have functional aims. A survey of other terms of Aristotle’s teleology, such as “nature does nothing in vain”, the terms “complete” or “perfect”, as well as “end” and “entelechy” further show the specific orientation of Aristotle’s teleology, as do his use of axiological terms such as “better” and “fine”. (shrink)

Aristotle's definition of the soul should be interpreted as: 'the soul is the entelechy of a natural body that serves as its instrument'.

In biology the term “vitalism” is usually associated with Hans Driesch’s doctrine of the entelechy: entelechies were nonmaterial, bio-specific agents responsible for governing a few peculiar biological phenomena. Since vitalism defined as such violates metaphysical materialism, the received view refutes the doctrine of the entelechy as a metaphysical heresy. But in the early twentieth century, a different, non-metaphysical evaluation of vitalism was endorsed by some biologists and philosophers, which finally led to a logical refutation of the doctrine of (...) the entelechy. In this non-metaphysical evaluation, first, vitalism was not treated as a metaphysical heresy but a legitimate response to the inadequacy of mechanistic explanations in biology. Second, the refutation of vitalism was logically rather than metaphysically supported by contemporary biological knowledge. The entelechy was not a valid concept, because vitalists could neither formulate vital laws, nor offer convincing examples of experimental indeterminism. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Aristotle on the Etruscan Robbers:A Core Text of "Aristotelian Dualism"Abraham P. Bos (bio)1. A Non-Platonic Dualism in Aristotle's Lost WorksThe Soul of a Mortal on Earth is not "At Home," says Aristotle in his dialogue Eudemus. The story about the mantic dream of the expatriate Eudemus and his expectation that he "will return home"1 is well known. It makes clear that, in Aristotle's view, the death of the human (...) individual should be interpreted as the soul's "return to its homeland."2 This is strongly suggested by "the revelation of Silenus" which Plutarch (first century CE) passes down in a literal quotation from the Eudemus.3 It contains the theme of human life on earth as a punishment (timôria). The motif of human life as a punishment is central to two texts by Iamblichus (250-325 CE) and Augustine (354-430 CE), which are usually connected with Aristotle's Protrepticus.4 I want to examine these texts in more detail here. My intention in the following exposition is to propose a non-Platonistic explanation of these texts. In my opinion they have wrongly been read as testimonies of a "Platonistic" phase in Aristotle. The existence of such a phase in Aristotle's development has never been proved. Besides, the interpretation of these texts suffered from the fact that [End Page 289] Aristotle's De anima had also been explained in an unhistorical way since Alexander of Aphrodisias in the third century CE.2. Revising the Modern View of AristotleWe have to make a different assessment of Aristotle's contribution to the discussion on the soul compared with what was current until recently. For after W. Jaeger5 and F. Nuyens6, modern scholars became inclined to leave Aristotle's dialogues out of consideration, because they regarded them as "Platonizing." But a fundamental correction is necessary on this point.7 Jaeger led modern Aristotle studies in a wrong direction by assuming a sharp distinction between Aristotle's lost dialogue Eudemus and his surviving treatise De anima. Although nowadays Jaeger's theory for many scholars is something of a dead horse, nevertheless a real alternative has not been proposed. We still have to get rid of the consequences of the Jaegerian paradigm and develop a unitary interpretation of Aristotle's entire oeuvre. Even more consistently than O. Gigon has already done,8 we should assume that Aristotle's lost works and his surviving biological writings and De anima did not propose two (or more) different psychological theories but one and the same. Because this one Aristotelian psychology was a non-Platonistic but nevertheless dualistic psychology, we have much more reason than could be recognized in the past to assume Aristotelian influence on this discussion.On one essential issue Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato: the soul,9 more particularly the indissoluble bond of the soul with a body. Aristotle radically and [End Page 290] consistently argued for the distinction between nous and psychè.10 For Aristotle the nous-in-act is always wholly incorporeal. But he considered it characteristic of the soul that it cannot carry out its functions "without body."11However, the crucial question is: what body does Aristotle mean when he says that the soul cannot perform its specific activities "without body"? Jaeger and Nuyens were wholly convinced that Aristotle was referring to the visible, external body of a human being, animal, or plant. Hence they saw a yawning gap between Aristotle's views in De anima and his position in the dialogue the Eudemus. In the Eudemus Aristotle had clearly argued that the soul can perform its own functions very well, indeed better, without the galling and oppressive visible body.12 But in De anima II 1, in his famous definition of "the soul," Aristotle says that the soul is inextricably bound up with a "sôma physikon organikon."13 Jaeger and Nuyens, following an almost unanimous tradition since Alexander of Aphrodisias in the third century CE, interpreted this sentence in the sense that the soul is the formal principle or entelechy of an "organic body" or a "natural body equipped with organs," i.e., the visible body... (shrink)

Kleinschmidt's definition of the “Weltformenkreis” as the smallest systematical unit of affinity removes any danger of obliterating the type and at the same time opens a way for judging the superior taxonomic groups on principle differently from the subspecies of a “Formenkreis”.It is demonstrated that the characters of geographical subspecies are characters of apparent shaping, those of the species however are characters of construction and qualitative and autonomic ones. It is the type differentiating in quality that justifies the definition of (...) species. As the characters of type do not necessarily appear gradual and quantitative, but are qualitative, the types cannot be derived from one another, unless they are conceived by the common superordinate idea of the superior systematical category next in order.The distinct division of species is opposed to the hypothetical continuity of the pedigree, which cannot be explained by a consanguinity nor by an affinity based on reproduction. The pedigree, however, is an expression of the spiritual order of nature, in which the types appear as units hierarchically graduated and determined by entelechy, not by dead matter.Within the systematical units there is a creative evolution, steadily pursuing its aim and leading from the primitive stage to the differentiated one, beginning with a juvenile phase, which is followed by orthogenetic maturity and, finally, by the aged stage with its “detypification”. The adaptation to the environment may be also proved for the primitive forms and is an organic part of the whole design of the world for them as well as for the specialized and differentiated forms. — The formation of new types cannot be explained in a merely mechanical way; everywhere, even in the gens and genoms, we state ingenious modifications, which do not only bring about a reaction of a single modification to the whole, but operate from the whole. Since the origin of man, since the tertiary formation, the creation of species has completely ceased. There are only alterations of subspecific character.After a digressive treatise on the fundamental difference of man and animal in order to explain the type the superior systematical categories are characterized as spiritual realities. It is especially for the “genus” that a revision is necessary. The reality of the common origin of certain species within the genus is not based on reproduction , but on the superior totality comprising the species. Individuals can be conceived by the character of the species, species by the character of genus only. This is an evidence for the methodicalness of creative nature. It excludes any evolution of the genus “from bottom to top”, which is irregular, accidental or immediately formed by environment. From this we derive the comprehensive right of a natural system which now is more than mere classification.Kleinschmidt qui donne une définition du „Weltformenkreis” comme la plus petite unité d'affinité systématique, déjoue le danger d'oblitérer le type et offre, en même temps, la possibilité de juger les groupes taxonomiques supérieurs par principe différemment de la souspèce d'un „Formenkreis”.Nous démontrons que les caractères des souspèces géographiques sont des caractères du façonnement extérieur, tandis que ceux de l'espèce sont des caractères de la construction d'une manière qualitative et autonome. Le type différent en qualité justifie seulement la définition de l'espèce. Comme les caractères du type n'apparaissent pas nécessairement graduels et quantitatifs, mais sont au contraire, qualitatifs, les types ne se dérivent pas l'un de l'autre, à moins qu'ils ne soient compris par la commune idée supérieure du plus sublime groupe systématique.La division distincte des espèces s'oppose à la continuité hypothétique de la généalogie, qui ne s'explique pas par une consanguinité ni par une affinité se fondant sur la reproduction, mais qui est plutôt une expression du régime spirituel de la nature, dans lequel les types se présentent comme des unités rangées hiérarchiquement et réglées par l'entéléchie et non par la matière.Dans les unités systématiques il y a une évolution créatrice qui tend continuellement à son but et mène de la phase primitive à la phase différentiée commençant par un état juvénile, qui est succédé par la maturité orthogénétique et enfin par l'âge avec sa „détypification”. L'adaptation au milieu est démontrée pour les formes primitives et représente un élément organique du grand projet mondial pour elles aussi bien que pour les formes spécialisées et différentiées. — La formation de types nouveaux ne s'explique pas seulement d'une manière mécanique; partout, même dans les „genes” et les „genomes”, nous observons des transformations ingénieuses, qui ne sont pas seulement une réaction d'une modification particulière à l'ensemble, mais un effet de l'ensemble. Depuis l'origine de l'homme, depuis la période tertiaire la formation d'espèces est complètement finie. À présent il n'y a plus que des variations d'un caractère souspécifique. Après un traité digressif sur la différence essentielle de l'homme et de l'animal pour expliquer le type les groupes systématiques supérieurs sont caractérisés comme des réalités spirituelles. C'est surtout pour le genre qu'une révision est nécessaire. La réalité de la racine commune de certaines espèces dans le genre ne se fonde pas sur la reproduction , mais sur la totalité supérieure qui implique toutes les espèces. Des individus sont compris par le caractère d'espèce, des espèces seulement par le caractère de genre. C'est une preuve de la méthode de la nature créatrice. Elle exclut une évolution de genre „du bas en haut”, qui est irrégulière, faite par hasard ou formée directement par le milieu. De là nous dérivons le droit compréhensible d'un système naturel, qui est désormais plus qu'une simple classification. (shrink)

I invoked the notion of supervenience in my doctoral disseration, Microreduction and the Mind-Body Problem, completed at the University of Michigan in 1974 under the direction of Jaegwon Kim. I had been struck by the appeal to supervenience in Hare (1952), a classic work in twentieth century metaethics that I studied at Michigan in a course on metaethics taught by William Frankena; and I also had been struck by the brief appeal to supervenience in Davidson (1970). Kim was already, in (...) effect, construing the relation between physical and mental properties as a supervenience relation?although he was not yet using the word ?supervenience?. I assumed that a materialistic metaphysics was correct, and that integral to materialism is the idea that higher-level sciences (including psychology) are reducible to lower-level ones?ultimately to microphysics. One idea I pressed in the dissertation was that biconditional ?bridge laws? would not suffice for genuine intertheoretic reduction if these inter-level laws were additional fundamental laws of nature alongside those of the reducing science; they would be what Herbert Feigl and J.J. C. Smart, in their writings on the psychophysical identity theory, called ?nomological danglers.? I argued that the higher-level property in a bridge law should bear a relation of strict supervenience to its correlated lower-level property, rather than merely being nomically correlated with it. The basic idea was that there are no two physically possible worlds w1 and w2?where a physically possible world is, roughly, a world in which the laws of microphysics obtain and in which there are no nonphysical substances like entelechies or Cartesian souls?such that the actual-world bridge laws obtain in world w1 but not in world w2. (Thus, the bridge laws themselves are fixed relative to the fundamental physical facts and fundamental laws, rather than being fundamental laws themselves alongside those of microphysics.) Already when. (shrink)

This book raises and examines the philosophical problem of how it is possible that the social world is constituted as a unified totality. A novel theory of social i holism is put forward on the basis of what is specified as formal ontology. The first part of the book discloses the non-extensional constitution of the social world and proposes that the individual is to be understood as a 'Leibnizian entelechial monad' in conceptual communication with the others. it is further established (...) that the categories of social holism must be placed within a transcendental locus. in the second part, this conceptual communication is analysed as the possession and application of social concepts, meaningful linguistic behaviour, and the intentionality of mental acts. Finally, in the last part, the event-structure to the social world is described. Social states of affairs as constituents of an event-dense social world are shown to be complex wholes irreducible to their subjects and instantiating an intensional nexus of relations of social properties. (shrink)

Die Suche nach historischen Quellen für die Leibniz’sche Philosophie scheint zunächst unerschöpflich. Durch alle in diesem Band versammelten Arbeiten wird der Einfluss der Philosophie des Aristoteles auf das Leibniz’sche Denken näher umrissen. Ein wesentliches Ziel ist es hierbei, einen Beitrag zur Analyse dieser philosophischen Beziehung zu leisten und zu zeigen, dass auch Aristoteles’ Philosophie nach Ansicht unserer Autoren entscheidend zum Verständnis des Leibniz’schen Denkens beiträgt. Die Texte befassen sich mit wesentlichen Themen der Leibniz’schen Logik und Metaphysik, z. B. mit den (...) Grundbegriffen „Monade“ (und deren „Körperhaftigkeit“), „Entelechie“, „Nous“, mit dem Problem der Individuation (Individuum, Atomismus, Einheit), mit den substanziellen Formen, mit der Wissenschaft im Allgemeinen und der Technik, mit der Transformation der Logik, mit den Prinzipien (nämlich denjenigen des zureichenden Grundes, der Individuation und der Notwendigkeit), mit Zukunft und Kontingenz sowie Vergänglichkeit, mit der Theorie der syllogistischen Folgerung, usw. Diese Themen werden stets in der Gegenüberstellung von Leibniz und Aristoteles behandelt – sie zeigen daher, wie Leibniz aristotelische Thesen übernahm, veränderte oder kritisierte. The search for the historical sources of Leibniz’s philosphy initially seems to be unending. All the essays in this volume outline more clearly the influence of Aristotle’s philosophy on Leibniz’s thought. In this context a fundamental aim is to contribute to the analysis of this philosophical relationship and to demonstrate that Aristotle’s philosophy, in the opinion of our authors, plays a decisive role in the understanding of Leibniz’s thought. The texts address fundamental themes of Leibniz’s logic and metaphysics, e.g. the basic concepts of ‘monads’ (and their ‘corporality’), ‘entelechy’ and ‘nous; the problem of individuation (individual, atomism, unity); substantial forms; knowledge in general, and technology; the transformation of logic; principles (namely those of sufficient grounds, of individuation and of necesssity); future and contingency and transientness; the theory of syllogistic deduction, etc. These themes are regularly considered in the comparison between Leibniz and Aristotle – they demonstrate how Leibniz took over, treated or criticised Aristotelian theses. (shrink)

Classical and medieval writers had no term for consciousness in anything like the modern sense, and their philosophy seems not to have been troubled by the mind-body problem. Contemporary eliminativists find strong support in this fact for their claim that consciousness does not exist, or, at least, is not an appropriate scientific explanandum. They typically hold that contemporary conceptions of consciousness are artefacts of Descartes' (now outmoded) views about matter and his unrealistic craving for epistemological certainty. Essentially, they say, our (...) belief in consciousness is a residue of once pressing, but now irrelevant, intellectual tensions between religion and the rising new science of the Early Modern period. With the attempts of Descartes and his successors to resolve these tensions, Western thought began down a track toward the conceptual cul-de-sac of the "hard problem". Plausibly, the problem will only be (dis)solved, and the onward march of science assured, when we are able to shake off the pervasive influence of the Cartesian tradition in a way that goes far beyond the mere rejection of dualism. But when we do so, eliminativists contend, the distinctively Cartesian notion of consciousness will simply drop out of our world-picture, like phlogiston or the vital entelechy. (shrink)

La noción de Ley –del mismo modo que las nociones de Estado o de Nación– no es sino una entelequia que enmascara tras de sí una ausencia sustancial. Su existencia no posee otro objetivo que el de brindar un sostén simbólico capaz de velar ese vacío originario, haciendo de nuestro mundo un lugar menos acosado por la incertidumbre. De acuerdo con esto, el objetivo del presente trabajo es el de internarnos en una búsqueda que pueda conducirnos nuevamente hacia ese suelo (...) originario, hacia ese momento cero de la institución. El ensayista Michel de Montaigne oficiará de guía en esa búsqueda. Él nos conducirá hacia el terreno en el cual la solidez de los fundamentos parece desvanecerse, o, más bien, hacia el momento simbólico en el cual una mera decisión humana, tan arbitraria como contingente, da origen a aquellas normas que poco a poco, gracias a esa maestra violenta y traidora que es la costumbre, habrán de ser veneradas en su aparente intemporalidad. The notion of law –as the notions of state or nation– is nothing but an entelechy that masks behind it a substantial absence. Its existence has no other purpose than to provide us with a symbolic support able to veil that originating void, making our world a place less hurried by uncertainty. In accordance with this, the aim of the present paper is to begin a search that may lead us back to the original soil, to the time zero of institution. The essayist Michel de Montaigne will be our guide. He will lead us to the land on which the strength of the foundation seems to vanish, or, rather, to the symbolic moment in which a mere humane, arbitrary and contingent decision gives rise to those standards who gradually, thanks to the violent and treacherous teacher who is custom, start to be worshiped in his apparent timelessness. (shrink)

Holistic biology, which during the last years has gained wide acceptance amoungst biologists and philosophers, aspires to a new point of view as regards the problem of life which transcends the opposing theories of mechanism and vitalism. The exponents of holism repudiate the purely mechanical theory, the principle of life is something more than a highly complicated physico-chemical process. At the same time, however, the characteristics of life should be traced to the principles of pure natural science, untroubled by the (...) introduction of metaphysical factors such as entelechy etc.This critical review endeavours to show that holism is often used by its exponents entirely in the sense of entelechy, that is to say as a metaphysical principle. On the other hand we seek to point out that where holism has been used in the sense of natural science it by no means bridges the gulf between mechanism and vitalism. The same comment applies to the holism ofMeyer, the foundation of which may be right after all and is worthy of consideration.La biologie totalitaire qui, ces dernières années, a pris une très grande extension chez les biologistes et les philosophes, requiert une attitude nouvelle vis à vis du problème de la vie, attitude qui puisse nous mener au-delà de l'opposition entre le mécanisme et le vitalisme. Le mécanisme est rejeté par les partisans de la biologie totalitaire; la vie est plus qu'un processus physico-chimique excessivement compliqué. D'autre part la nature spéciale du processus vital devra être expliquée par l'idée totalitaire, comprise uniquement de la façon dont on l'entend dans les sciences naturelles. Cette nature spéciale ne devra pas être expliquée, comme le fait le vitalisme, par l'introduction de facteurs métaphysiques comme par exemple l'entéléchie.Le but de la présente critique est de démontrer que l'idée totalitaire est employée souvent par les partisans de la biologie totalitaire purement dans le sens de l'entéléchie, c'est à dire comme un principe métaphysique. D'autre part notre critique cherche à démontrer que la totalité, comprise uniquement de la façon dont on l'entend dans les sciences naturelles, ne nous mène pas au-delà de l'opposition entre le mécanisme et le vitalisme. Cela est vrai aussi pour le holisme deMeyer, dont l'idée fondamentale n'est pas nécessairement fausse pourtant et est en tout cas très digne de considération. (shrink)

In his writings, Edmund Pellegrino analyzes four deficiencies in the humanity of those who fall ill: the loss of (1) freedom of action, (2) freedom to make rational choices, (3) freedom from the power of others, and (4) a sense of the integrity of the self. Since Pellegrino's analysis and commitment to virtuebased ethics preceded much of the attention later given by philosophers to the importance of the moral principle of autonomy (in contrast to beneficence) in patient care, it is (...) helpful to trace the source of his commitment to virtue-based ethics and his account of freedom to Aristotle's analysis of the human soul, as an entelechy of an intact and healthy living organism that, unimpeded by illness, moves itself to act, to actualize its intellectual potential in the form of making rational choices, and to free itself from the power of others by remaining independent and without need of continuous assistance, while at the same time retaining the integrity of a unified self that can act, think, and choose for itself autonomously. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 34.4 (2001) 322-334 [Access article in PDF] From Mysticism to Skepticism: Stylistic Reform inSeventeenth-century British Philosophy and Rhetoric Ryan J. Stark The idea of stylistic plainness captured the imaginations of philosophers in the seventeenth century. Francis Bacon's early attacks on "sweet falling clauses" and Thomas Sprat's invectives against "swellings of style" are especially quotable, and have been cited often by scholars from R. F. Jones to (...) Ian Robinson as evidence that a new attitude toward style emerged in the seventeenth century in conjunction with the new science. Still, even Robinson, who acknowledges the scientific influence on prose, cannot reconcile the plain style ideology with the less-than-sparse styles of the plain style advocates themselves. "The paradox," Robinson notes, "is that Sprat's language is itself imaginative and rhetorical," adding that Sprat denounced "the imagination... in a quite strongly imaginative way" with his "anti-rhetorical rhetoric" (160). This problem leads Robinson to charge that Sprat, Joseph Glanville, Bishop John Wilkins, and the other plain style advocates contradicted themselves by using highly metaphorical styles to criticize metaphorical styles, or were hypocrites in a stronger phrasing, even "painted hypocrites," to borrow a metaphor from one of Wilkins's complaints against metaphorical language.I will address this persistent argument that members of the Royal Society contradicted themselves by using elaborate metaphors to denounce elaborate metaphors, calling into question the very premise of the plain style mandates. The fact that members of the Royal Society continued to use figurative language in their writings is irrelevant. The plain style advocates did not attempt to remove figurative language from all discourses, or even scientific discourses. 1 "Plainness," instead, denotes a lack of occult influence in language. This forgotten philosophical meaning of "plainness" shows clearly that the plain style advocates did not share an antipathy toward ornamental styles, as is often suggested; rather, they shared an antipathy toward entelechial conceptions of style. The Royal Society's [End Page 322] arguments against obscure styles are arguments against the assumptions of a magical worldview, that enchanted cosmos occupied by Faustus and Macbeth, not arguments against any specific type of sentence structure or kind of metaphor. Technical issues of grammar and syntax played a minor role in these stylistic debates. In an ontological sense, the plain style advocates from Bacon to Sprat reconceptualized the very nature of linguistic form. This reconceptualization is best described as a movement away from mystical understandings of style and toward skeptical understandings of style, and this shift from mysticism to skepticism marks the stylistic reformation in the seventeenth century. 1. Entelechies and ornaments Bacon complains famously against "tropes and figures," "sweet falling of clauses," and "watery writings" in an introductory section of The Advancement of Learning entitled "Discredits to Learning from the Follies of the Learned--Ciceronianism, Scholasticism, Alchemy, and Natural Magic" (24-26). 2 Bacon includes a section for distempers of learning that do not fit neatly into categories, called "Other Errors of Learned Men Which Hinder the Progress and Credit of Learning." The coupling of these styles with alchemy and natural magic is not incidental. Bacon and the subsequent plain style advocates of the Royal Society target Ciceronian and scholastic styles specifically because of their strange cosmic elements, not because of their grammatical structures. For the new scientists, these vital styles recall a mystical worldview full of celestial influences, magical emblems, oneiric visions, and attendant spirits. The introductory section of Bacon's Advancement of Learning codifies in the newly scientific community the negative association between mysterious styles (e.g., Ciceronian, Senecan, baroque, metaphysical) and various kinds of occult behavior. Perhaps more so than any other English text, Bacon's Advancement banishes those mystical high styles of the late Renaissance to the mists and shadows of the credulous past, as Cowley describes in his "Ode to the Royal Society," to the "Kingdom of Darkness and Night" in Pope's Dunciad, or to "the island of savage women and moonlight" in Tennyson's "Locksley Hall."In Sciri Tuum Nihil Est, Glanville defends the plain style programs... (shrink)

Classical and medieval writers had no term for consciousness in anything like the modern sense, and their philosophy seems not to have been troubled by the mind-body problem. Contemporary eliminativists find strong support in this fact for their claim that consciousness does not exist, or, at least, is not an appropriate scientific explanandum. They typically hold that contemporary conceptions of consciousness are artefacts of Descartes' (now outmoded) views about matter and his unrealistic craving for epistemological certainty. Essentially, they say, our (...) belief in consciousness is a residue of once pressing, but now irrelevant, intellectual tensions between religion and the rising new science of the Early Modern period. With the attempts of Descartes and his successors to resolve these tensions, Western thought began down a track toward the conceptual cul-de-sac of the "hard problem". Plausibly, the problem will only be (dis)solved, and the onward march of science assured, when we are able to shake off the pervasive influence of the Cartesian tradition in a way that goes far beyond the mere rejection of dualism. But when we do so, eliminativists contend, the distinctively Cartesian notion of consciousness will simply drop out of our world-picture, like phlogiston or the vital entelechy. (shrink)

La noción de Ley –del mismo modo que las nociones de Estado o de Nación– no es sino una entelequia que enmascara tras de sí una ausencia sustancial. Su existencia no posee otro objetivo que el de brindar un sostén simbólico capaz de velar ese vacío originario, haciendo de nuestro mundo un lugar menos acosado por la incertidumbre. De acuerdo con esto, el objetivo del presente trabajo es el de internarnos en una búsqueda que pueda conducirnos nuevamente hacia ese suelo (...) originario, hacia ese momento cero de la institución. El ensayista Michel de Montaigne oficiará de guía en esa búsqueda. Él nos conducirá hacia el terreno en el cual la solidez de los fundamentos parece desvanecerse, o, más bien, hacia el momento simbólico en el cual una mera decisión humana, tan arbitraria como contingente, da origen a aquellas normas que poco a poco, gracias a esa maestra violenta y traidora que es la costumbre, habrán de ser veneradas en su aparente intemporalidad. The notion of law –as the notions of state or nation– is nothing but an entelechy that masks behind it a substantial absence. Its existence has no other purpose than to provide us with a symbolic support able to veil that originating void, making our world a place less hurried by uncertainty. In accordance with this, the aim of the present paper is to begin a search that may lead us back to the original soil, to the time zero of institution. The essayist Michel de Montaigne will be our guide. He will lead us to the land on which the strength of the foundation seems to vanish, or, rather, to the symbolic moment in which a mere humane, arbitrary and contingent decision gives rise to those standards who gradually, thanks to the violent and treacherous teacher who is custom, start to be worshiped in his apparent timelessness. (shrink)

In the course of his lectures given in Como in 1927 Niels Bohr introduces a very important concept of complementarity. Two years later he publishes his first view of biological questions, which he includes in one series of lectures devoted to quantum mechanics and complementarity. In one of his later articles in the same series, explaining why he started publishing his opinions on biology, he states that this may help understand his interpretation of physics, and especially the category of complementarity. (...) He can see a possibility of using the category of complementarity also outside physics. He hopes that epistemological implications of his category of complementarity can broaden the spectrum of recipients when they will refer to well-known problems, especially in the sphere of biology. Bohr directs his attention to biology hoping to shed new light on the old problem concerning the understanding of the concept of life. He has no doubts that the \'epistemological lesson\' of quantum mechanics, by drawing attention to the observation conditions in biology, may be helpful in overcoming the controversy between \"vitalism\" and \"mechanicism\". He rejects the vitalistic doctrine with its \"vital force\" or \"entelechy\", as devoid of scientific valor. He also formulates arguments against \"mechanicism\". Bohr developed his biological interests directed to philosophy to the end of his life. His last work was devoted to exactly biological questions. Unfortunately, sudden death stopped him from completing it. Because of the fact that in some places Bohr presented his views on biology in an obscure way, some biologists included him in the circle of supporters of vitalism. A more profound analysis of his views proves that this opinion is groundless. (shrink)

Abstrak: Bertitiktolak dari teori Prosesi (proodos) realitas, Plotinos menyatakan bahwa manusia adalah sebuah pluralitas, sebuah “kami,” di mana sebagai bagian utuh dari realitas, jiwa manusia merangkumi di dalamnya ketiga hipostasis intellingibel (Yang Satu, Intellek, Jiwa). Kesatuan aktual manusia dengan dunia intelligibel diungkapkan Plotinos dalam doktrinnya yang kontroversial tentang bagian jiwa manusia yang tidak turun ke dunia. Pemikiran Plotinos ini merupakan rangkuman orisinal atas ajaran-ajaran Platon tentang imortalitas jiwa, doktrin hylemorfisme Aristoteles dalam ranah Fisika—kategori-kategori forma, materia, potentia actus, entelekheia, dan energeia, (...) motor immobil, noûs yang memikirkan dirinya sendiri—serta teori Logos dari Stoicisme. Sebagaimana tampak dalam prinsip energeia ganda, Plotinos secara kreatif menggunakan sumber-sumber para pendahulunya untuk mengemukakan teori barunya tentang realitas, khususnya tentang jiwa manusia. Kata-kata kunci: imortalitas jiwa, hylemorfisme, logos, prosesi, hipostasis, Yang Satu, Intellek, Jiwa. Abstract: The procession of reality leads Plotinus to assert that man is a plurality. As part of reality, each of us is a “we,” because all three hypostases (the One, the Intellect, and the Soul) are present in us. This is a controversial theory of soul. Plotinus affirms that man is actually present in the intelligible world by the undescended part of his soul. To understand this original theory, one has to consider the way Plotinus used his predecessors’ theories: the Platonic theory of the soul’s immortality, the hylemorphism theory of Aristotle’s Physics (form, matter, potency, actuality, entelechy, energy, unmoved mover, noûs which thinks its noema), and the Stoics’ theory of Logos. As shown in the theory of double energy, Plotinus used creatively the theories of those predecessors to invent his own theory of the procession of reality, more specifically, his unique theory of man’s soul. Keywords: immortality of the soul, hylemorphism, logos, procession, hypostase, the One, Intellect, Soul. (shrink)

For the physicalist, the mind-body problem is the problem of finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical. What does “fundamentally physical” mean? I think any physicalist will accept at least the following two claims. First, the world contains nothing but bits of matter and aggregates of bits of matter. There are no Cartesian souls, or Hegelian spirits, or neo-vitalist entelechies—as the emergentist C. Lloyd Morgan put it, no “alien influx” into the natural order. This (...) ontological thesis is sometimes called “ontological physicalism”. Second, we have the supervenience thesis: physical facts determine all the facts, and the physical properties of a thing determine all its properties. At this point, then, the world looks like this: all the things that exist are physical things—either basic bits of matter or wholly made up of bits of matter. These physical things have properties. What properties? First, there are basic physical properties, like mass, size, shape, electric charge, and so on—properties and magnitudes in terms of which laws of physics are formulated. But some properties of complex physical systems, like biological organisms, seem prima facie nonphysical—at least, they are not among the properties investigated in physics or the physical sciences. Prominent among them are mental properties—beliefs, desires, sensations, emotions, and the rest. The supervenience thesis says that such properties are fixed by the physical properties of the systems that have them; once the physical properties of a system are fixed, that fixes all of its properties. And yet property dualists, or nonreductive physicalists, maintain that although certain non-physical properties are determined by physical properties, they are irreducible to, and remain distinct from, physical properties. Although thoughts and pains are determined by the biology, and ultimately physicochemistry, of an organism, they are not biological/physical properties themselves, and there exists a special autonomous science of psychology, or cognitive science, that is responsible for investigating them. (shrink)

According to vitalism, living organisms differ from machines and all other inanimate objects by being endowed with an indwelling immaterial directive agency, ‘vital force,’ or entelechy . While support for vitalism fell away in the late nineteenth century many biologists in the early twentieth century embraced a non vitalist philosophy variously termed organicism/holism/emergentism which aimed at replacing the actions of an immaterial spirit with what was seen as an equivalent but perfectly natural agency—the emergent autonomous activity of the whole (...) organism. Organicists hold that organisms unlike machines are ‘more than the sum of their parts’ and predict that the vital properties of living things can never be explained in terms of mechanical analogies and that the reductionist agenda is doomed to failure. Here we review the current status of the mechanist and organicist conceptions of life particularly as they apply to the cell. We argue that despite the advances in biological knowledge over the past six decades since the molecular biological revolution, especially in the fields of genetics and cell biology the unique properties of living cells have still not been simulated in mechanical systems nor yielded to reductionist—analytical explanations. And we conclude that despite the dominance of the mechanistic–reductionist paradigm through most of the past century the possibility of a twentyfirst century organicist revival cannot be easily discounted. (shrink)

This paper investigates phenomenological philosophy as the critical consciousness of modernity beginning from that point in the Vienna Lecture where Husserl discounts Papuans and Gypsies, and includes America, in defining Europe as the spiritual home of reason. Its meaning is analyzed through the introduction of the concept of institution in Crisis to argue that the historical fact of encounter with America can be seen as an event for reason insofar as the encounter includes elements previously absent in the European (...) class='Hi'>entelechy. The conclusion shows that phenomenology must become a comparative, Socratic, diagnosis of the planetary crisis of reason. The entelechy of reason that becomes evident through the concept of institution should be understood less as a renewal of a pre-existing tradition than as an exogenic encounter and incursion of an outside that together define an instituting event as new in relation to its tradition. (shrink)

Aristotle’s notion of substance and its relation to his investigation of the question of being qua being in the Metaphysics is one of the most important, enduring, and intriguing problems in scholarship focused on Aristotle and the tradition of metaphysics. This article explores some of the more recent developments in this area of scholarship, especially the trend toward more dynamic interpretations of Aristotle’s conception of substance, as a way of renewing the question of what Aristotle really means by being. On (...) this basis, the article reinterprets Aristotle’s investigation of substance as the primary sense of being in the Metaphysics. It argues that there are two primary ways substance may be considered; with respect to the principles of intelligibility of substance and with regard to the causal framework of the real unity and determinacy of substance. The primary principles of the intelligibility of substance, it is argued, are end and fulfilment (telos and entelechy). The causal framework of the real unity and determinacy of substances, on the other hand, can be understood via the notion of act and activity (energeia). (shrink)

The depiction of the relation of God and man is one of the most difficult challenges of religious philosophy and even more the understanding of God and the human self-conception are deeply entwined. Trying an access to both questions starting from subjectivity, the idea of God is investigated in Descartes, Feuerbach and Husserl. After a discussion of the idea of God in Descartes and its consequences for human aspiration, the opposite standpoint of Feuerbach and his so-called theory of projection will (...) be examined. Finally, aspects from both thinkers are brought together in Husserl’s phenomenological ethics. The idea of God is the entelechy of reason and self-realizing goodness, in which the searching person can realize its own potentials as much as its own abyss, yet is always called to advance beyond herself and toward the ever-beyond God within. (shrink)

Polanyi’s vision of the cosmic process as undergirded by a logic of emergence common to both the mental life of human beings and the processes of non-human nature can be vindicated if one is prepared to make certain adjustments in the notion of morphogenetic fields with an active center or organizing principle. Given the author’s field-oriented interpretation of Whiteheadian societies, it should be possible to think of entelechies or final causes in developmental rather than strictly Aristotelian terms. That is, the (...) “common element of form” or organizing principle of a Whiteheadian society depends for its own existence on the spontaneous activity of previous sets of actual occasions and yet serves as the ongoing principle of formal and final causality for the present set of actual occasions and still others to follow it. In Aristotelian language, matter and form thus dialectically condition one another and neither is ontologically superior to the other. (shrink)

In "Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzen­ dentale Phänomenologie", dem zuletzt vom Husserl-Archiv in Löwen veröffentlichten Werk Husserls erscheint deutlich, welche Stellung und welche Aufgabe für ihn seine Phänomenologie in der Geschichte hat. "Menschentum überhaupt ist wesensmässig Menschsein in ge­ nerativ und sozial verbundenen Menschheiten, und ist der Mensch Vernunftwesen (animal rationale), so ist er es nur, sofern seine ganze Menschheit Vernunftmenschheit ist -latent auf Ver­ nunft ausgerichtet oder offen ausgerichtet auf die zu sich selbst gekommene, für sich selbst (...) offenbar gewordene und nunmehr in Wesensnotwendigkeit das menschheitliche Werden bewusst lei t end e Entelechie. Philosophie, Wissenschaft wäre demnach die historische Bewegung der Offenbarung der universalen, dem Menschentum als solchem 'ein­ geborenen' Vern unft". 1 Das Wesentliche des Menschen ist für Husserl im europä­ ischen Menschentum zum Durchbruch gekommen. Es ist das ihm mit der Geburt der griechischen Philosophie zugewachsene Telos, Mensch aus Vernunft sein zu wollen und nur als solcher sein zu können, "... in der unendlichen Bewegung von latenter zu offenbarer Vernunft und im unendlichen Bestreben der Selbst­ normierung durch diese seine menschheitliche Wahrheit und 2 Echtheit". Im vorläufigen Scheitern dieser Bewegung liegt für Husserl der Grund der sich in unzähligen Symptomen äussernden "Krisis 3 des europäischen Daseins". Mit dieser Erkenntnis aber ist diese Krisis kein dunkles Schicksal, kein undurchdringliches Verhält­ nis mehr, sondern wird verständlich und durchschaubar. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:HUSSERL ON GALILEO'S INTENTIONAI,ITY 1JHE PROBLEM OF THE compatibility between pheomenology and history is the unique problem characterizing Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology.1 Husserl attempts to resolve the pvoblem by directly investigating the crisis of the modern sciences-a crisis which he claims begins with Galileo. The aim of this essay is to evaluate critically Husserl's assessment of Galileo as the originator of the crisis. (...) I hope to show that, given Husserl's own demands for the proper historico-phenomenological investigation of the crisis, his conclusions about Galileo are not justified. This will be accomplished, in part, by using some of the work on Galileo done by William A. Wallace, 0.P. THE "ORIGIN" OF THE CRISIS Husserl describes the crisis of European sciences in terms of a teleological movement. The telos began with the radical change effected by the ancient Greeks in their recognition that reason is essential to humanity, and that reason is the entelechy of humanity.2 For the Greeks, one of the exigencies of reason is a universal knowledge of what is, in which truth in itself, episteme, is attainable. The telic character of reason is revealed in the fact that reason in its philosophical mode continually moves from latent to manifest reason beginning with the Greeks. Husserl writes: "... the telos... was inborn in 1 Translated, with an introduction, by David Carr (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970) ; abbreviation: Orisis. 2 See Carr's Introduction p. xxxviii to the Orisis for a discussion of the sense in which the Greeks' change was a radical one. 680 HUSSERL ON GALILEO'S INTENTIONALITY 681 European humanity at the birth of Greek philosophy-that of humanity which seeks to exist, and is only possible, through philosophical reason, moving endlessly from latent to manifest reason and forever seeking its own norms through this, its truth and genuine human nature..." 3 The search for a universal knowledge initially had a " na'ive obviousness " which from the very beginning was not immune to transformations that eventually would increase and achieve greater and greater sophistication. For Husserl, the transformations are brought about by skepticism, which, in its denial of the presence of reason in " the factually experienced world," finally reaches the point where "... the deepest essential interrelation between reason and what is in general, the enigma of all enigmas, has to become the actual theme of inquiry." 4 This inquiry ought to be the task for contemporary philosophy. Such a task has been recognized to a certain extent beginning with Hume and on through Kant and beyond. What Hume and Kant attempted with regard to the Renaissance renewal of the ancient Greek ideal of a universal philosophy, Husserl prescribes in a more radical way for Hume and Kant themselves, indeed, for the whole of the history of philosophy and (modern) science.5 Husserl's immediate task will be to overcome the naive rationalism of the eighteenth-century and the "unnoticed na'ivetes" of the present day, so that the genuine sense of rationalism may be established. A philosophy is needed which would bring the entelechy of reason to its realization; this is, Husserl explains, reason "... fully conscious of itself in its own essential form, i.e. the form of a. universal philosophy which grows through consistent apodictic insight and supplies its own norms thl'ough an apodictic method." 6 Such a task is intrinsically historical since the manifestation of reason can only come about through concepts, problems, and methods which s Husserl, p. 15. 4 Ibid., p. 13. s Ibid., p. 1. 6 Ibid., p. 16. 682 PETER J. CATALDO are themselves inescapably inherited. We must proceed, then, by "exhibiting" and "testing" the "inner meaning and hidden teleology" of philosophy's history. Husserl concludes: What is clearly necessary (what else could be of help here?) is that we reflect back, in a thorough historical and critical fashion, in order to provide, before all decisions, for a radical self-understanding ; we must inquire back into what was originally and always sought in philosophy, what was continually sought by all the philosophers and philosophies that have communicated with one another historically; but this must include a... (shrink)