The volume collects classics of Marxist historiography of science, including a new translation of Boris Hessen's “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's ...

The ArgumentFranz Borkenau's book,The Transition from Feudal to Modern Thought(Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild[literally:The Transition from the Feudal to the Bourgeois World-Picture]), serves as background for Grossmann's study. The objective of this book was to trace the sociological origins of the mechanistic categories of modern thought as developed in the philosophy of Descartes and his successors. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, according to Borkenau, mechanistic thinking triumphed over medieval philosophy which emphasized qualitative, not quantitative considerations. (...) This transition from medieval and feudal methods of thought to modern principles is the general theme of Borkenau's book, and is traced to the social changes of this time. According to this work, the essential economic change that marked the transition from medieval to modern times was the destruction of the handicraft system and the organization of labor under one roof and under one management. The roots of the change in thought are to be sought here. With the dismemberment of the handicraft system and the division of labor into relatively unskilled, uniform, and therefore comparable activities, the conception of abstract homogeneous social labor arises. The division of the labor process into simple repeated movements permits a comparison of hours of labor. Calculation with such abstract social unities, according to Borkenau, was the source from which modern mechanistic thinking in general derived its origin.Grossmann, although he considers Borkenau's work a valuable and important contribution, does not believe that the author has achieved his purpose. First of all, he contends that the period that Borkenau describes as the period of the triumph of modern thought over medieval should not be placed at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but in the Renaissance, and that not Descartes and Hobbes but Leonardo da Vinci was the initiator of modern thought. Leonardo's theories, evolved from a study of machines, were the source of the mechanistic categories that culminated in modern thought.If Borkenau's conception as to the historical origin of these categories is incorrect in regard to time, Grossmann claims it follows that it is incorrect also in regard to the social sources to which it is ascribed. In the beginning, the factory system did not involve a division of labor into comparable homogeneous processes, but in general only united skilled handicraftsmen under one roof. The development of machinery, not the calculation with abstract hours of labor, is the immediate source of modern scientific mechanics. This goes back to the Renaissance and has relatively little to do with the original factory system that was finally superseded by the Industrial Revolution.While Borkenau, in tracing the social background of the thought of the period, relies chiefly on the conflicts and strife of political parties, Grossmann regards this as one element only in the formation of the general social situation, which in its entirety and in the interaction of its elements explains the development of modern thought. (shrink)

Le livre de Borkenau, „Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild“ développe une nouvelle théorie de la naissance de la pensée moderne. Il s’attache à rechercher l’origine, moins de telles ou telles idées particulières que des concepts fondamentaux et des méthodes de penser de l'époque moderne. Borkenau considère avant tout la représentation mécaniste du monde telle qu'elle a été fondée dans la philosophie de Descartes et de ses successeurs comme décisive pour la pensée moderne et il élucide ses conditions sociologiques.L'étude (...) de Grossmann part du livre de Borkenau qu'il soumet à la critique et il essaye d'indiquer de manière indépendante une meilleure voie qui mène à la compréhension de la formation de la pensée bourgeoise. Ses arguments se rapportent avant tout à deux groupes de problèmes. D'après Borkenau, c'est au début du xvne siècle que la conception mécaniste du monde l'a emporté sur la philosophie qualitative qui régnait auparavant. Cette interprétation est jugée par Grossmann comme une méconnaissance de l'histoire réelle des idées et des faits. L'origine des questions fondamentales de la mécanique doit être cherchée à la Renaissance et Léonard de Vinci est un de ses créateurs. Ces théories nouvelles, dégagées en grande partie de l'étude des machines de son temps, se sont développées par différentes voies jusqu'à Galilée et Descartes, dont les doctrines ne marquent donc pas le début de la pensée mécaniste.L'autre critique fondamentale est étroitement liée à celle-ci. Elle concerne l'explication que donne Borkenau de la représentation mécaniste. Si celle- ci a pris naissance au xvne siècle, la condition essentielle de cette réalisation doit donc s’être produite à peu près à cette époque. D'après Borkenau cette condition serait la diffusion des manufactures. Avec la division de l'activité artisane en activités uniformes non qualifiées à l'intérieur de la manufacture, serait né le concept d'un travail social abstrait. La décomposition du processus de travail en mouvements simples dans la manufacture aurait rendu comparables les heures de travail. Le calcul avec du travail abstrait constituerait la base de la représentation mécaniste du monde. Grossmann montre en s'appuyant sur Marx que le plus souvent il ne saurait être question de division de travail dans les manufactures, mais que, en règle générale, des artisans qualifiés travaillaient réunis dans un même local. Ce n’est pas le calcul avec les heures de travail, mais l'évolution du machinisme qui aurait été la cause immédiate de la mécanique scientifique. Cette genèse remonte sans doute à la Renaissance et a très peu à faire avec les manufactures qui ont été finalement refoulées par l'industrie des machines.Alors que Borkenau, lorsqu'il vient à parler du conditionnement social des philosophes et des savants, remonte surtout aux batailles des partis politiques, Grossmann ne voit dans les partis qu’un facteur de l'ensemble de la situation complexe, à partir de laquelle s'explique le mouvement des idées modernes. Une théorie suffisante de l'évolution de la pensée moderne implique qu'on tienne compte de la totalité des forces sociales.Franz Borkenau's book „The Transition from Feudal to Modern Thought“ („Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild“), serves as background for Grossmann's study. The objective of this book was to trace the sociological origins of the mechanistic categories of modern thought as developed in the philosophy of Descartes and his successors. In the beginning of the 17th century, according to Borkenau, mechanistic thinking triumphed over mediaeval philosophy which emphasized qualitative, not quantitative considerations. This transition from mediaeval and feudal methods of thought to modern principles is the general theme of Borkenau's book, and is traced to the social changes of this time. According to this work, the essential economic change that marked the transition from mediaeval to modern times was the destruction of the handicraft system and the organization of labor under one roof and under one management. The roots of the change in thought are to be sought here. With the dismemberment of the handicraft system and the division of labor into relatively unskilled, uniform, and therefore comparable activities, the conception of abstract homogeneous social labor arises. The division of the labor process into simple, repeated movements permits a comparison of hours of labor. Calculation with such abstract social unities, according to Borkenau, was the source from which modern mechanistic thinking in general derived its origin.Grossmann, although he considers Borkenau’s work a valuable and important contribution, does not believe that the author has achieved his purpose. First of all, he contends that the period that Borkenau describes as the period of the triumph of modern thought over mediaeval should not be placed at the beginning of the 17th century, but in the Renaissance, and that not Descartes and Hobbes but Leonardo da Vinci was the initiator of modern thought. Leonardo's theories, evolved from a study of machines, were the source of the mechanistic categories that culminated in modern thought.If Borkenau’s conception as to the historical origin of these categories is incorrect in regard to time, Grossman claims it follows that it is incorrect also in regard to the social sources to which it is ascribed. In the beginning, the factory system did not involve a division of labor into comparable homogeneous processes, but in general only united skilled handicraftsmen under one roof. The development of machinery, not the calculation with abstract hours of labor, is the immediate source of modern scientific mechanics. This goes back to the Renaissance and has relatively little to do with the original factory system that was finally superseded by the Industrial Revolution.While Borkenau, in tracing the social background of the thought of the period, relies chiefly on the conflicts and strife of political parties, Grossmann regards this as one element only in the formation of the general social situation, which in its entirety and in the interaction of its elements explains the development of modern thought. (shrink)

In the following pages I will outline the main biographical data and the intellectual activity of two of the major protagonists of the debate on the mechanistisches Weltbild within the Frankfurt “Institut fur Sozialforschung” in the thirties. I have included a selected bibliography of Grossmann's and Borkenau's works, and refer to titles with abbreviations [H.G.…] and [F.B.…].

Henryk Grossman's discussion of economic crises was designed to complement his Leninist understanding of politics. For Grossman, as for Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist production is between the unlimited scope for expanding the output of use-values and restrictions imposed by the framework of producing profits. The increasing weight of capitalists' outlays on dead compared to living labour, which is the only source of new value, gives rise to the system's tendency to break down and, hence, to economic crises. (...) Deep financial crises can only be understood in the context of developments in production and particularly movements in the rate of profit. The initial widespread hostility to Grossman's development of Marxist economics can mainly be explained in terms of the logics of Social-Democratic and Stalinist politics. In contrast to dominant views on the Left today, the Marxist tradition in which Grossman stood places the construction of organisations capable of assisting the working class' conquest of political power at the heart of the responsibility of socialists. Grossman's political practice expressed his understanding of the close relationship between capitalism's breakdown tendency and the importance of building a revolutionary party. (shrink)

The article seeks to understand Hannah Arendt's political thinking by relating it to an issue which is crucial to the thinking of the later Heidegger, i.e., the problem of originality ( Anfänglichkeit) and history. In opposition to Hegel's thesis of the “end of art,” Heidegger envisages in “great art” such as Hölderlin's poetry a new origin of thinking and history. The end of art, which Hegel holds to be necessary, is in Heidegger's view to be overcome precisely because art, for (...) him, entails an origin which is not a “Not yet” of a teleological perfection in Hegel's sense, but a “Not yet” of a future history. However, Heidegger's orientation towards a “pure” origin qua future leads him to poietically escape the realm of the Political and the questions of praxis and practical rationality.Like Heidegger, Arendt is taken with the problem of origin; but in contrast to her former teacher, she tries to regain what Heidegger thought he could leave, viz., the dimension of the genuine Political and of acting. The original sense of acting (for Arendt, the capability of human beings to make a new beginning) can be observed in the Greek polis as well as in the American Revolution in modern times: The revolutionary act of a total new beginning elucidates, according to Arendt, what “acting” means in the full and truly political sense. However, Arendt's notion of an epochal beginning seems one-sided, and her abstract concept of acting seems to foster a mere actionism and anarchy. Therefore, contrary to Arendt's claims, the concept of the Political which she shapes in accordance with the extraordinary experiences of an epochal acting has apolitical consequences. The task of thinking after Heidegger and Arendt thus remains one of determining the political character of action in a convincing manner. In this respect, the paper pleads for a rethinking of Hegel's concept of ethical life ( Sittlichkeit). (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The geography of religion is one of the younger areas of religious studies. The subject of her interests is the reciprocal ties that stand between religion and the geographical environment. On the one hand, the influence of the geographical environment on the formation of religious imaginations is investigated, and on the other hand, feedback, that is, what kind of religion does the change in the geographical environment. In addition, this area of ​​religious studies is engaged in the distribution of individual (...) religions, demographic and statistical issues, as well as analysis of the topography of holy places, problems of religious migration, pilgrimage, missions, religious tourism, etc. (shrink)

Report on analysis of ” pergamene sigillata“ from Delos This paper presents the results of the analysis of twenty samples of ” pergamene sigillata” from destruction layers of Delian living quarter, which can be dated to 69 BC. The programme included petrographical and chemical analysis, as well as MGR (Matrix Group by Refiring) method. The results show that the samples belong to several groups, among which some could be identified by comparison with chemical reference groups. Two samples were produced in (...) the Ketios valley workshops, four come from the Çandarlı area, and four others probably from the Pergamon region, from workshops not yet identified. The rest of the samples do not originate from that region, and were produced in other Asia Minor centers (six of them come from Ephesos, the rest from unidentified workshops). (shrink)

Continuing the earlier research in [14] we give some more information about nonmaximal open subgroups of G = Aut with unique maximal extension, where ℳ is a countable recursively saturated model of True Arithmetic.

Celem artykułu jest analiza mobilności Antonia Santa Crocego – tytularnego arcybiskupa Seleucji i nuncjusza apostolskiego w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów w latach 1627–1630. Autorzy odtworzyli podróż dyplomaty papieskiego z Rzymu do Rzeczypospolitej odbytą w 1627 r., podróż powrotną nad Tyber z 1630 r. oraz dwa wojaże po Polsce – miesięczny wyjazd do Prus z 1627 r., podjęty w związku z trwającą wojną o ujście Wisły oraz polsko-szwedzkimi rokowaniami prowadzonymi przy udziale mediatorów niderlandzkich, a także – dwumiesięczny objazd Mazowsza, będący w rzeczywistości (...) ucieczką przed zarazą, jaka w drugiej połowie 1629 r. nawiedziła ziemie Korony. Podstawą opracowania jest korespondencja Santa Crocego z Sekretariatem Stanu Stolicy Apostolskiej, nad którym pieczę sprawował kardynał nepot Francesco Barberini. Wspomniana korespondencja przechowywana jest w Archivio Apostolico Vaticano oraz w Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Znaczna jej część została wydana w serii Acta Nuntiaturae Polonae (t. XXIII, vol. 1–2). Interesującym źródłem o charakterze uzupełniającym jest _Diario di Roma (1608–1644) _autorstwa Giacinto Gigliego, w którym pamiętnikarz uwiecznił wjazd Santa Crocego do Wiecznego Miasta latem 1630 r. Ponadto autorzy wykorzystali literaturę przedmiotu poświęconą zagadnieniu podróży przedstawicieli papieskich, m.in. prace ks. Henryka Damiana Wojtyski, Teresy Chynczewskiej-Hennel czy Tadeusza Fitycha. Autorzy dokonali analizy rękopiśmiennych materiałów źródłowych pod kątem mobilności nuncjusza Santa Crocego, dzięki czemu udało się uzupełnić jego itinerarium. W publikacji zwrócono uwagę na opisy odwiedzanych przez niego miejsc oraz personalia osób, z którymi przedstawiciel papieski spotykał się podczas swych wojaży. Zarysowano również pewne wątki, które będą kontynuowane w przyszłych badaniach, a dotyczą sfery organizacyjnej nuncjatury w czasie, gdy przedstawiciel papieski przebywał poza dworem. Artykuł może stanowić cenne uzupełnienie do badań nad podróżami w czasach nowożytnych, jak również przyczynek do zagadnienia związanego z mobilnością dyplomatów w czasie realizowania ich misji. (shrink)