Disons le tout de suite, le livre de l’historienne allemande Monika Siedentopf, Parachutées en terre ennemie, et le film Femmes de l’ombre, tiré de ses recherches n’ont pas grand-chose à voir ensemble. Autant le livre ouvre une nouvelle page de l’histoire de la participation des femmes à la Résistance contre l’occupant nazi, autant le film tire les ficelles d’un pseudo-héroïsme féminin qui conforte les mythes au détriment de la réalité historique. Ce qui est un comble quand on découvre la r...

Die Wissenschaftsphilosophie des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts ist reichhaltiger und differenzierter in ihren Standpunkten als lange vermutet. Die Autoren zeigen das anhand der nur teilweise erforschten Interaktion zwischen den Wissenschaftsphilosophen des deutschen und französischen Sprachraums. Das Buch liefert neue Erkenntnisse zur Rolle der Philosophiekongresse in Prag 1934 und Paris 1937 sowie zur Bedeutung einzelner Akteure wie Marcel Boll, der die Rezeption des Logischen Empirismus in Frankreich beförderte. Die Spuren, die Ernst Mach, aber auch der weniger bekannte deutsche Physiologe und Hirnforscher Ewald (...) Hering in der französischen Wissenschaftsphilosophie hinterliessen, verfolgen die Autoren bis hin zu den Ideen Jean Piagets. Im Mittelpunkt des Buchs stehen Philosophen aus Frankreich, Deutschland und Österreich und ihre Leistung, die Wissenschaften nicht nur erkenntnistheoretisch und logisch durchleuchtet, sondern auch erkannt zu haben, dass ihre theoretische Struktur nur dann vollständig erfasst werden kann, wenn ihre praktische Dimension mit einbezogen wird. Dafür steht Henri Poincaré, der die tragende Rolle der Konventionen für die Theoriebildung in der Mathematik herausstellte. Sichtbar wird der Bezug zur Praxis auch in Moritz Schlicks Überlegungen zu einer auf Empirie basierenden Ethik oder in der Arbeit Otto Neuraths, der eine aus den modernen Wissenschaften gewonnene Konzeption menschlichen Erkennens für das Projekt der gesellschaftlichen Aufklärung fruchtbar machen wollte. (shrink)

History of Mongolian philosophy, intellectual life, and politics; covers until 14th century.

This article challenges the claim that Friedrich Nietzsche is a good reader of the French moralist, Chamfort, when it comes to Chamfort's politics. Chamfort is a meritocrat rather than the bitter egalitarian Nietzsche protrays him to be. Moreover, the moralist's meritocratic beliefs, his hopes for a new social order and the emergence of a new aristocracy resemble many of Nietzsche's own values. Had Nietzsche read Chamfort as a meritocrat, he could have found much to stimulate and clarify his own thoughts (...) about the aristocracy of the future. (shrink)

R. S. Woolhouse; IV*—Leibniz's Reaction to Cartesian Interaction, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 86, Issue 1, 1 June 1986, Pages 69–82, https:/.

İslâm coğrafyasının genişlemesi neticesinde Arap olmayan toplulukların İslâm dini ile tanışmaları beraberinde bir takım problemleri de getirmiştir. Bu problemler arasında, Kur’ân’ın yanlış anlaşılma endişesi en başı çekmektedir. Arapçaya hâkim olmamaktan kaynaklanan dil hatalarının âyetlere kadar sirayet ettiğini gösteren birçok rivayetin varlığı da bunu teyit etmektedir. Bundan dolayı hicrî birinci yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren dil ile ilgili faaliyetler aralıksız bir şekilde devam etmiştir. Bu faaliyetler arasında, Kur’ân’ın üslûbunu, âyetlerde yer alan kelimelerin delâleti ve sesletimini, cümlelerin iç bütünlüğü ile filolojik tahlillerini ele (...) alan çalışmalar bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmalar, Arap gramerinin oluşturulması ve bazı gramer ekollerinin ortaya çıkmasıyla birlikte genellikle “Ma‘âni’l-Ḳur’ân” ve “İ‘râbü’l-Ḳur’ân” başlıkları kullanılarak daha sistemli bir şekilde hicri dördüncü yüzyılın sonlarına kadar devam etmiştir. “Ma‘âni’l-Ḳur’ân” başlığını kullanarak eser yazan âlimler arasında gramer ilmiyle birlikte tefsir alanında da önemli bir konuma sahip olan Yahyâ b. Ziyâd el-Ferrâ da bulunmaktadır. Sözü edilen eserde Ferrâ’nın, lügavî tahlilleri esnasında özellikle sözcüklerin siygası ve çok anlamlılığı doğrultusunda dil-kültür ilişkisine örnek olabilecek birçok bireysel değerlendirmesine rastlanılmaktadır. Onun bazı ayetler etrafında sergilenen çeşitli görüşlere yer verdikten sonra Arap toplumu nezdinde bir yönüyle de bile olsa kabul gören semantik tahlillere ayrıca yer vermesi, müfessirlerin, çoğu zaman anlaşılması güç ayetlerle birlikte murad edilenin dışında bir yorumun önlenmesi için dönemin kültüründen yararlanmaları gerektiği şeklinde de değerlendirilebilir. Bu bakımdan Kur’ân-ı Kerîm’in insanlığa sunduğu mesajların en doğru şekilde anlaşılabilmesi adına bazı âyetlerin tefsiri ve değerlendirmesi yapılırken başvurulacak ilmî merci ve disiplinlerin geniş tutulması önem arz etmektedir. Binâenaleyh makalede Ferrâ’nın kendisine özgü tahlilleriyle beraber, görüşlerine yer verdiği başka âlimlerin analizlerinden sadece dil-kültür ilişkisine örnek olabilecek tespitler üzerinde durularak kültür ve dil etkileşiminin âyet yorumundaki rolüne işaret edilecektir. (shrink)

R S Downie; Personal and Impersonal Relationships, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 5, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 125–138, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

Professor Kai Nielsen is one of the most forceful proponents of the view that theological assertions have no factual reference because they are compatible with any empirical state of affairs; no evidence, it is alleged, is allowed to count as falsification of such assertions, and therefore they spuriously purport to be what they are not. In this he follows the well-known essay by Professor Antony Flew in which the same argument was advanced, and Nielsen's own most recent contribution on the (...) subject in Religious Studies should be read against the background of his earlier controversy with Professors John Hick and George Mavrodes in The Canadian Journal of Theology. In this latest article he broadens the canvas to question the significance of applying language and concepts appropriate to the realm of empirical observation to anything that is held to transcend it; and this is the substance of Part II of his paper, in which he engages in debate with Professor Ian Crombie, treading well-worn ground that has been the subject of innumerable philosophical discussions. The rest of the paper, however, is a restatement of his earlier contention, and it is with this more limited issue that I shall be concerned in what follows. For I believe that Nielsen is wrong in two quite fundamental respects: he is mistaken in supposing that theological assertions are compatible with any empirical state of affairs: he bases his critique of theological assertions on a far too uncritical appraisal of the principles of verification and falsification in the case of ordinary factual statements. If I am right, the larger questions raised in Part II will still remain open, but it is high time that the ‘verification-falsification argument’ should be shown to be unfounded. (shrink)

For nearly half a century, Quentin Skinner has been the world's foremost interpreter of Thomas Hobbes. When the contextualist mode of intellectual history now known as the “Cambridge School” was first asserting itself in the 1960s, the life and writings of John Locke were the primary topic for pioneers such as Peter Laslett and John Dunn. At that time, Hobbes was still the plaything of philosophers and political scientists, virtually all of whom wrote in an ahistorical, textual-analytic manner. Hobbes had (...) not been the subject of serious contextual research for decades, since the foundational writings of Ferdinand Tönnies. For Skinner, he was thus an ideal subject, providing a space for original research on a major figure, and an occasion for some polemically charged methodological manifestos. Both of these purposes animated his 1965 article “History and Ideology in the English Revolution,” and his 1966 article “The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political Thought”. The latter of these remains to this day one of the most widely cited scholarly articles in the fifty-year run of Cambridge's Historical Journal. Among other results of these early efforts was the scholarly controversy during which Howard Warrender chided Skinner for having reduced the “classic texts in political philosophy” to mere “tracts for the times”. (shrink)