Any historical and critical appreciation of Hegel's basic thesis of the identity of metaphysics with logic cannot fail to compare it with his charging Kant and Fichte with attaching a merely subjective meaning to logical determinations, as well as Schelling with spinozism and extrinsicalness in conceiving the absolute indifference of subject with object. This paper aims to give an account of Hegel's notion of nature as it arises from the fulfillment of the logical idea (as the Anderssein of the idea (...) in which it is in the form of the alienation (Entaeusserung)) by focussing attention on the logical pathway of the notion of externality (Aeusserlichkeit) in the Doctrine of Being. I argue for an alternative to the received view on the outcome of the Logic of Being, by pointing out two different meanings, overlooked so far, attached to the category of measure vs. the notion of Mode and to Spinoza's substance in 1812 and 1832. (shrink)

Il testo affronta, alla luce delle più recenti pubblicazioni, il tema del rapporto storia e natura in Hegel; e offre una sintesi del corso di Filosofia della storia tenuto da Russo A. nel corrente anno accademico.

For the first time, documental evidence is provided in German to support the claim that during his Bern period Hegel continued to cultivate his interests and training in mathematics, physics and the natural sciences, thus filling an important lacuna in the development of Hegel's thought, also for the multifarious fund representative of both French Cartesian school and Newtonian handbooks present in Tschugg's library. So far, indeed, the Geometrische Studien and the 1801 De orbitis had been viewed as a sudden return (...) to previous concern, after the Bern's gap. Moreover, according to the received view, the sources of Hegel's Dissertation dated back to the Frankfurt period. (shrink)

Emanuel Swedenborg has been a literary celebrity for more than two centuries because of his vivid depictions of heaven and hell. But to a considerable extent this renown has also excluded him from the history of science, to which he actually belongs. He was active as an exegete and a visionary only during the last twenty‐five years of his long life, and before he got a divine call to found a new Christian church he had published a great number of (...) scientific works.Immanuel Kant's negative polemics in Träume eines Geistersehers offers an explanation as to why historians of science have only rarely taken an interest in Swedenborg, but it is not the only one. Swedenborg does not seem to have exerted any particular impact on contemporary science, and many of his writings—for example, the voluminous manuscripts on the human brain—remained unpublished for more than a century. He was employed not as a university professor but as a civil servant in the College of Mines, and therefore he had no actual disciples. Consequently his contributions to science have mostly been studied by literary historians as precursors to his visionary works.Francesca Maria Crasta, an Italian historian of science, has reacted against the prevailing views that depict Swedenborg as a visionary fool. As she declares in the preface to this new book on Swedenborg's philosophy of nature, she set out to study him as a scientist in the context of his time, an approach that perhaps makes him less exciting but certainly better defined historically. Within self‐imposed limits she has carried out her task quite well. She has carefully analyzed the scientific works published through 1734, including the magnum opus Principia rerum naturalium published in that year. This means that she has discussed Swedenborg's studies of inorganic nature in toto. On the other hand, she has abstained from addressing his extensive studies of the human body during the following decade, an effort that resulted in two large works in print and a great number of posthumously published manuscripts.The title of Crasta's book may therefore arouse unmet expectations, but what it does provide is valuable enough. The author starts with a survey of Swedenborg's works in natural philosophy from 1716 to 1734, in which she proves herself to be well versed both in the original sources and in the secondary literature. In the next four chapters she then discusses, in sequence, how Swedenborg discerned the origin of the universe in the mathematical point and its further development up to the birth of the planetary system through a series of finite particles. She emphasizes that Swedenborg got his decisive inspiration from Descartes, an author “constantly present although very seldom directly quoted in the Swedenborgian Principia” . No doubt this is a correct observation; the notorious scarcity of references in Swedenborg's writings makes life complicated for those who are trying to describe his intellectual background in detail.It is not surprising, then, that Crasta has not been able to detect any previously unknown sources. However, she has presented fresh and interesting aspects of the intellectual environment in which Swedenborg's philosophy of nature took shape. One example is her comparisons between Swedenborg's, Leibniz's, and Vico's ways of using the concepts of “mathematical” and “metaphysical” point, which show that Leibniz and Vico distinguish clearly between them while Swedenborg lets them merge. In that context she has also noticed that in the later parts of the Principia Swedenborg starts to make use of eggs and similar biological metaphors . This is an important observation that lends support to her thesis that mechanistic Cartesianism is balanced in Swedenborg's philosophy of nature by the influence of Leibniz. Quite reasonably, Crasta also maintains that Swedenborg's presentation of magnetism comes much closer to Leibniz's optimism than to the Neoplatonic idea of decay he had met in Thomas Burnet .Another topic of particular interest is the question of a potential Swedenborgian influence on Kant's Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels , although not as transmitted by Buffon, as has sometimes been assumed, but by Thomas Wright's An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe . Crasta has been unable to reach a firm conclusion, but she has proved that this is an issue well worth raising. Despite some inaccuracies with regard to chronological and bibliographical data, this learned book is a substantial contribution to our understanding of Emanuel Swedenborg as a scientist in his time. (shrink)

In Berkeley’s writings the topic of light is discussed in two different ways, within a theory of perception and within a metaphysics of nature of a Platonic stamp. In his first work, the original Essay for a New Theory of Vision, light and colours are regarded as condition and object of vision; they are examined as contents of visual perception distinct from tangible perception. Light will be dealt with in a completely different manner in Berkeley’s last work, Siris, in which (...) a spiritualistic reading of the natural world is superimposed on modern science in general and on Newtonian physics in particular. In Siris, light is the instrument by which the causal activity of divine Intellect orders and permeates the natural world. A detailed analysis of the topic of light in the two aforementioned contexts shows inconsistencies and strained interpretations which derive from the apologetic use of the theory of vision in Berkeley’s early immaterialism and from the multi-layered and confused speculations of his late Siris. On the whole, Berkeley conceives light within the idealistic frame inherited from Platonic metaphysics of light; however, the specific themes examined in the Essay for a New Theory of Vision and in Siris derive from acquisitions of modern science, and are recast within a spiritualistic interpretation which intended both to neutralize scientific ideas through their phenomenistic reading and to exploit them for apologetic ends. (shrink)

The year 2005 has been named the World Year of Physics in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's "Miracle Year," in which he published four landmark papers which had deep and great influence on the last and the current century: quantum theory, general relativity, and statistical mechanics. Despite the enormous importance that Einstein’s discoveries played in these theories, most physicists adopt a version of quantum theory which is incompatible with the idea that motivated Einstein in the first place. (...) This seems to suggest that Einstein was fundamentally incapable of appreciating the `quantum revolution,’ and that his vision of physics as an attempt to reach a complete and comprehensive description of reality was ultimately impossible to obtain. Relativity theory has provided us with a picture of reality in which the world can be though as independent on who observes it, and the same can be said for statistical mechanics. Instead, quantum mechanics seems to suggest that physical objects do not exist `out there’ when someone is not observing them. In this framework, it is often suggested that any kind of causal explanation is impossible in the atomic and subatomic world, and therefore should be abandoned. This is why many think that it is in principle impossible for quantum theory to provide us with a coherent and comprehensive view of the world, in contrast with what happens with relativity and statistical mechanics. Is it really impossible to pursue Einstein’s ideal of physics also in the quantum framework? This book argues that this is not the case: the central idea is that Einstein’s vision of physics is still a live option, and indeed it is the one that best allows obtaining a unitary understanding of our physical theories. One can consider all the three theories mentioned above, suitably modified, as theories that are able to account and explain the world around us without too much departure from the classical framework. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -/- La teoria della relatività, la meccanica statistica e la meccanica quantistica hanno profondamente rivoluzionato il nostro modo di concepire spazio, tempo, materia, probabilità e causalità, nonché il rapporto tra universo fisico ed osservatore, nozioni che sono state al centro della discussione filosofica dal mondo greco fino ai nostri giorni. Questo volume, opera di Valia Allori, Mauro Dorato, Federico Laudisa e Nino Zanghì, non solo intende suggerire nuovi metodi di confronto tra fisica e filosofia, ma prova altresì a rendere espliciti i presupposti filosofici che sono presenti nell'interpretazione che i fisici stessi danno del formalismo matematico. (shrink)

Di cosa siamo veramente responsabili? Qual è il margine di libertà delle nostre azioni, anche di quelle che crediamo dipendano esclusivamente dalla nostra volontà? Fino a che punto la società capitalistica globalizzata “svia” i caratteri fondamentali della nostra natura umana? Quanto c’è di innato e di culturale in questa “natura”? La violenza e la guerra sono naturali?