Het is bijna niet voor te stellen hoeveel Foucaults studie Surveiller et punir in het verleden betekend heeft voor mij en een belangrijk deel van mijn generatie. Vanwege mijn Franse achtergrond – ik promoveerde in Straatsburg op een proefschrift over Albert Camus – kende ik Foucault en zijn werk al goed. Je kon met name in de zomer van 1967 gewoon niet om hem heen. In alle parken en cafés rond de universiteit zaten toen in Straatsburg studenten zijn dikke boek (...) Les mots et les choses ostentatief te etaleren. Ze hadden het met de titelpagina naar boven naast of voor zich liggen, of hielden hun kostbare schat, met weer de titel goed zichtbaar in de hand. Het kwam zelden voor dat ze erin lazen. Als buitenlander begreep ik er niets van. Mijn Franse vrienden legden het mij uit. (shrink)

The concept of embryological “exactness” is introduced; it becomes rather complicated if a called interaction of embryological parts is in question. From the point of view of the biological mechanist “exactness” is ultimately founded upon a given material structure. The experiment is the only possible way to decide, whether the mechanistic view is right or not; mere description does not suffice here. The decision is in favor of so called vitalism. The “harmonious-equipotential system” implies “exactness”. The “genes” are not the (...) ultimate foundation of morphogenesis and heredity; they are nothing but a material, with which the immaterial vital factor is working.Max Hartmann's views about the genes are refused. The new concepts “merogen” and “hologen” are introduced; and in connection with them the concepts of “the normal” and of regulation are discussed. Morphogenesis is a phenomenon of nature that is absolutely unique; the author speaks of the “singularity” of morphogenesis. Its chief feature is “insertion”; i.e. spatial and temporal localisation. Finally the author refers toAdolf Meyer's “Holism” once more. He is not of opinion thatMeyer's concept of “Simplification” is tenable; and he is unable to concede thatDonnan's mathematical formules imply a real progress of our understanding of biological facts. La conception de “l'exactitude” embryologique est admise; elle n'est pas sans difficulté quad il s'agit de l'action réciproque parmi les organes de l'embryon. Pour le mécaniste „l'exactitude” doit être fondée sur une structure matérielle donnée. L'expérience seule peut décider, si la théorie du mécanisme est exacte ou non; la description seule ne suffit pas. La décision est en faveur du vitalisme. Le „système harmonique-equipotentiel” comprend en effet „l'exactitude”. Les „gènes” ne sont pas le fondement essentiel de la morphogénèse et de l'hérédité. Ils ne sont qu'une matière avec laquelle l'agent immatériel vital travaille. Les opinions deMax Hartmann sur les gènes sont refutées. Les conceptions „mérogène” et „hologène” sont admises; par rapport à ces conceptions „le normal” et la régulation sont discutés. La morphogénèse est un phénomène absolument unique de la nature; l'auteur parle de la „singularité” de la morphogénèse. Son caractère principal est „l'insertion”, c'est à dire la localisation dans l'espace et dans le temps. Finalement l'auteur s'occupe de nouveau de l' „holisme” deAdolf Meyer. Il ne croit pas que la conception de „simplification” deMeyer puisse être soutenue; en outre il lui est impossible de voir un véritable progrès intellectuel dans les formules mathématiques établies parDonnan. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Donald Davidson has shocked his readers by arguing that assertion is not a conventional activity, thus attacking what was taken to be a truism by most philosophers of language. The paper claims that Davidson's argument is seriously flawed by his failure to distinguish a number of questions which should be kept separate. Assertion is a matter of seriousness, not of sincerity; departures from seriousness are marked by techniques which are undeniably conventional. There are no parallel indicators of seriousness, i. e. (...) there is no assertion-sign. But this necessary absence of a conventional marker of seriousness from our communicative repertoire does not imply that the activity of asserting is not conventional. Assertion differs in important ways from eating or walking; it is these differences which have led Searle, Lewis, EHimmett and countless others to conceive of language as essentially conventional'. The paper argues that Davidson'snaturalistic challenge illuminates the (non-existing) role of the assertion-sign, while failing to undermine the credentials of the 'truism'. (shrink)