Winthrop Parkhurst, W. J. Kingsland, Jr; Infinity and the Infinitesimal, The Monist, Volume 35, Issue 4, 1 October 1925, Pages 633–666, https://doi.org/10.5840/.

Winthrop Pickard Bell (1884–1965), a Canadian who studied with Husserl in Göttingen from 1911 to 1914, was arrested after the outbreak of World War I and interred at Ruhleben Prison Camp for the duration of the war. In 1915 or 1916 he presented a lecture titled “Canadian Problems and Possibilities” to other internees at the prison camp. This is the first time Bell’s lecture has appeared in print. Even though the lecture was given to a general audience and thusmakes (...) no explicit reference to Husserl or phenomenology, it is a systematic phenomenological analysis of the national form of group belonging and, as such, makes a substantial contribution to phenomenological sociology and political science, grounding that contribution in phenomenological philosophy. Bell describes the essence of the nation as an organic spiritual unity that grows or develops, and is thus not a product of will, and which becomes a unity by surmounting its parts. This unity is instantiated in a given nation by tradition. The particular character of a nation’s tradition gives it a tendency to act in one way rather than another. (shrink)

The article discusses problems related to the Canadian society and how that could be resolved. It has been informed that short-sighted materialism in education, unwillingness to pay teachers, peculiar social attitude towards the teaching profession are some of the problems associated with education in Canada. It has been stated that problem of agricultural credits needs to be resolved.

The break necessary to establish a rigorous science of cultural works is something more and something else than a simple methodological reversal.1 It implies a true conversion of the ordinary way of thinking and living the intellectual enterprise. It is a matter of breaking the narcissistic relationship inscribed in the representation of intellectual work as a “creation” and which excludes as the expression par excellence of “reductionist sociology” the effort to subject the artist and the work of art to a (...) way of thinking that is doubly objectionable since it is both genetic and generic.It would be easy to show what the most different kinds of analysis of the work of art owe to the norms that require treating works in and for themselves, with no reference to the social conditions of their production. Thus in the now-classic Theory of Literature, René Wellek and Austin Warren seem to advocate “an explanation in terms of the personality and the life of the writer.” In fact, because they accept the ideology of the “man of genius” they are committed, in their own terms, to “one of the oldest and best-established methods of literary study”—which seeks the explanatory principle of a work in the author taken in isolation .2 In fact, this explanatory principle resides in the relationship between the “space” of works in which each particular work is taken and the “space” of authors in which each cultural enterprise is constituted. Similarly, when Sartre takes on the project of specifying the meditations through which society determined Flaubert, the individual, he attributes to those factors that can be perceived from that point of view—that is, to social class as refracted through a family structure—what are instead the effects of generic factors influencing every writer in an artistic field that is itself in a subordinate position in the field of power and also the effects specific to all writers who occupy the same position as Flaubert within the artistic field. 1. See Pierre Bourdieu, “Intellectual Field and Creative Project,” trans. Sian France, Social Science Information 8 : 89-119; originally published as “Champ intellectual et projet créateur,” Les Temps moderns no. 246 : 865-906. See also Bourdieu, “Champ du pouvoir, champ intellectual et habitus de classe,” Scolies 1 : 7-26, and Bourdieu, “The Genesis of the Concepts of Habitus and Field,” trans. Channa Newman, Sociocriticism no. 2 : 11-24.2. René Welleck and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature p. 69. Pierre Bourdieu holds the chair of sociology at the Collège de France and is director of the Centre de Sociologie européenne at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Among his most recent works are Distinction , Homo Academicus , and Choses Dites. (shrink)

The sociology of literature, in the first of many paradoxes, elicits negations before assertions. It is not an established field or academic discipline. The concept as such lacks both intellectual and institutional clarity. Yet none of these limitations affects the vitality and rigor of the larger enterprise. We use the sociology of literature here to refer to the cluster of intellectual ventures that originate in one overriding conviction: the conviction that literature and society necessarily explain each other. Scholars and critics (...) of all kinds congregate under this outsize umbrella only to differ greatly in their sense of what they do and what sociology of literature does. They subscribe to a wide range of theories and methods. Many would not accept the sociology of literature as an appropriate label for their own work; other would refuse it to their colleagues. Nevertheless, every advocate agrees that a sociological practice is essential to literature. For the sociology of literature does not constitute just one more approach to literature. Because it insists upon a sociology of literary knowledge and literary practice within the study of literature, the sociology of literature raises questions basic to all intellectual inquiry.The sociology of literature begins in diversity. The way that is combines the ancient traditions of art with the modern practices of social science makes the very term something of an oxymoron. There is not one sociology of literature, there are many sociological practices of literature, each of which operates within a particular intellectual tradition and specific institutional context. These practices cross basic divisions within the contemporary intellectual field, especially within the university. Inherently interdisciplinary, the sociology of literature is subject to constant reformulation as scholars re-evaluate their disciplines. In consequence, disciplinary boundaries seem less rigid, less logical, and, hence, less authoritative than ever before. Even so—and this is another paradox of the sociology of literature—any sociological conception of literature is best situated in terms of an original discipline and its institutional setting. However frequently individual scholars cross over disciplinary lines, the fundamental divisions retain their force. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson is professor of French at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she is author of Literary France: The Making of a Culture. Philippe Desan, whose Naissance de la method: Machiavelle, la Ramée, Bodin, Montaigne, Descartes was published in 1987, is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago. Wendy Griswold, associate professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, recently published Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre, 1576-1980. (shrink)

Dieser Band der Husserliana Materialien enthält die Erstveröffentlichung der Dissertation von Winthrop Pickard Bell, dem ersten englischsprachigen Doktoranden Edmund Husserls. In seiner Arbeit untersucht Bell die Erkenntnistheorie seines einstigen Harvard-Professors, dem amerikanischen Pragmatisten und Idealisten Josiah Royce, und entwickelt hierzu eine Kritik vom Standpunkt der Husserl'schen Erkenntnisphänomenologie. Husserl selbst hatte ihn gebeten, über dieses Thema zu forschen. Die Beilagen dieses Bandes beinhalten Husserls Kommentare und Änderungsvorschläge zu der Arbeit sowie die 1922 im "Jahrbuch der philosophischen Fakultät in Göttingen" erschienene (...) Zusammenfassung derselben. Nachdem Winthrop Bell zwei Jahre in Harvard bei Josiah Royce studiert hatte, kam er 1910 nach Leipzig. Hier und später in Göttingen befasste er sich mit Husserls Phänomenologie und schloss sich dem Kreis der Studenten an, der sich um Husserl und Reinach als "Göttinger philosophische Gesellschaft" gebildet hatte. Im Sommer 1914 stellte Bell seine Dissertation schließlich zu einem denkbar ungünstigen Zeitpunkt fertig. Als kanadischer Staatsbürger - und somit Bürger eines Landes der feindlichen Alliierten - wurde er mit Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs im August 1914 inhaftiert und verbrachte fast die gesamte Kriegszeit in einem Gefangenenlager bei Berlin. Das Dissertationsverfahren konnte erst im Jahr 1922 abgeschlossen werden. Im Zuge dieser Turbulenzen erschien 1922 lediglich eine Zusammenfassung von Bells Doktorarbeit im "Jahrbuch der philosophischen Fakultät in Göttingen", die Arbeit selbst blieb bis 2012 in Kanada unter Verschluss. Auf Husserls nachdrückliche Empfehlung trat Bell jedoch 1922 eine Professur in Harvard an und trug maßgeblich zur Verbreitung der Husserl’schen Phänomenologie in Nordamerika bei. Die Kapitel „Die ‚erste Ansicht des Idealismus‘ und die Voraussetzungen der Royce’schen Erkenntnistheorie“ und „Kritik von Royces Voraussetzungen. Der eigentliche Boden einer Erkenntnistheorie. Die reine Wesenslehre des Bewusstseins“ sind auf link.springer.com unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht. This book was produced with the generous funding of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, KU Leuven, the Harrison McCain Foundation, the University of New Brunswick Busteed Publication Fund, the Department of Philosophy at the University of New Brunswick, and David Mawhinney. (shrink)

Within public health, and increasingly other areas of social policy, there are widespread calls to increase or improve the use of evidence for policy-making. Often these calls rest on an assumption that increased evidence utilisation will be a more efficient or effective means of achieving social goals. Yet a clear elucidation of what can be considered “good evidence” for policy is rarely articulated. Many of the current discussions of best practise in the health policy sector derive from the evidence-based medicine (...) movement, embracing the “hierarchy of evidence” that places experimental trials as pre-eminent in terms of methodological quality. However, a number of problems arise if these hierarchies are used to rank or prioritise policy relevance. Challenges in applying evidence hierarchies to policy questions arise from the fact that the EBM hierarchies rank evidence of intervention effect on a specified and limited number of outcomes. Previous authors have noted that evidence forms at the top of... (shrink)

These introductory remarks outline the German concept of Kulturtechniken by tracing its various overlapping meanings from the late 19th century to today and linking it to developments in recent German theory. Originally related to the agricultural domain, the notion of cultural techniques was later employed to describe the interactions between humans and media, and, most recently, to account for basic operations and differentiations that give rise to an array of conceptual and ontological entities which are said to constitute culture. In (...) the second part of the essay, cultural techniques are analyzed as a concept that allows theorists to overcome certain biases and impasses characteristic of that domain of German media theory associated with the work of the late Friedrich Kittler. (shrink)

A serious commitment to environmentalism entails ending America’s population growth and hence a more restrictive immigration policy. The need to limit immigration necessarily follows when we combine a clear statement of our main environmental goals—living sustainably and sharing the landscape generously with nonhuman beings—with uncontroversial accounts of our current demographic trajectory and of the negative environmental effects of U.S. population growth, nationally and globally. Standard arguments for the immigration status quo or for an even more permissive immigration policy are without (...) merit. Americans must choose between allowing continued high levels of immigration and creating a sustainable society. (shrink)

Based on a review of the literature and historical evidence, I argue that the use of the methodological principle known as the priority principle in Anglo-American Nietzsche scholarship is inconsistent and irreconcilable with historical evidence. It attempts to demarcate between the published works and the Nachlass. However, there are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions of a particular textual object being considered “Nachlass.” This absence leads to implicit and often tacit value demarcation criteria that can be broadly grouped into (...) four types of consideration: publication, authorization, publicness, and audience. Each of these criteria pick out a different set of texts as “Nachlass.” Thus, despite the veneer of agreement, the most broadly accepted methodological approach in the Anglo-American tradition of Nietzsche scholarship is applied inconsistently. I argue that we must either offer necessary and sufficient conditions for a piece of text being Nachlass, or we ought to abandon such abstract criteria altogether and embrace a contextual and historical approach. I then argue that the first option is impossible given historical evidence. I conclude this article by explicating several recent German approaches to the Nachlass which I think can offer a new possible approach. (shrink)