Timothy Knepper’s book is divided into two parts, the first and more critical of which seeks to uncover the limits and weaknesses of analytic and continental philosophy of religion, while the second and more constructive section seeks to develop an alternative and more fruitful way of practising philosophy of religion, “one that is historically grounded and religiously diverse” (p. xiii). Much of the impetus behind the book derives from feelings of dismay and dissatisfaction, familiar especially to religious studies scholars, over (...) the fact that “philosophy of religion often takes as its primary object of inquiry either ahistorical theism or postmodern philosophy, not the religions of the world in their historical complexity and cultural diversity” (p. ix). I found this to be a clear, well-argued and often provocative book, but also one flawed in some respects in its attempt to renew and reconceive the philosophy of religion.The starting-point of Chapter 1 (The End and Ends of Philosoph. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage est une invitation à penser avec plutôt que sur Miguel Abensour, parce que le meilleur hommage que l'on puisse rendre à un maître n'est pas d'arpenter en long et en large le chemin qu'il a déjà parcouru, mais de reprendre le flambeau pour l'amener plus loin. La pensée de Miguel Abensour n'est pas un objet d'étude. Elle est une force vive, une source d'interrogations continûment renouvelées, une puissance intempestive inquiète de l'ordre des choses et qui pourtant ne s'en (...) accommode jamais. Composer avec elle, c'est recomposer notre façon d'envisager le monde. Parce qu'il a été leur professeur, leur éditeur, leur directeur de thèse ou simplement un inspirateur, tous les contributeurs et toutes les contributrices de cet ouvrage ont une dette envers Miguel Abensour. La meilleure façon d'honorer cette dette n'est pas de rendre au créancier - et que lui rendrait-on, d'ailleurs? - mais de préserver le souffle de ce qu'il a transmis. Le souffle insurgeant de la démocratie, le souffle imaginatif de l'utopie, le souffle révolutionnaire de l'émancipation, le souffle vivant de la philosophie. Des souffles qui se mêlent, s'emmêlent et se démêlent. Des souffles désordonnés qui ont la vertu de nous désarçonner. Nous n'avons ni voulu domestiquer ces souffles, ni les mettre à l'unisson, mais avons, chacun et chacune à notre manière, choisi de nous laisser porter, et emporter, tout simplement, par le souffle d'une pensée."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

SummaryRecent studies have confirmed the traditional attribution of the invention of the balance barometer to Sir Samuel Morland. Two contemporary references to a 1678 printed pamphlet describing the invention are known but no copy has been located. This paper prints a seventeenth century manuscript copy of Morland's description of his balance barometer. The commentary outlines Robert Hooke's role in the invention. Morland's analysis of the mode of action of the instrument is considered in the light of contemporary comprehension of the (...) barometric phenomennon. (shrink)

The characteristics of inductivist historiography of science, as practised by earlier scientist/historians, and Whig historiography, as practised by earlier political historians, are described, according to the accounts of Agassi and Butterfield. It is suggested that the writings of Geikie on the history of geology allow us to characterize him as a Whig/inductivist historian of science who formulated anachronistic judgements. It is further suggested that his writings have had a considerable long-term effect on interpretations of the history of geology. The character (...) of Geikie's historiography is related to his social, political and religious views, his historicism, and his romantic enthusiasm for Nature. His methodological pronouncements are examined: he believed that the present is the key to the past, and also that the past is the key to the present. He was an empiricist and inductivist. These epistemological and methodological views impinged on his historiography of science. If one attempts to criticize Geikie's historiography, though one may try to judge his work according to the norms of his own day and age, historical anachronism cannot be avoided entirely and one may oneself be charged with acting ‘Whiggishly’. Historians of science, in the process of professionalization, have accepted the historiographical norms of general historians , but in so doing have inherited a problem that arises whenever they contemplate earlier historical writings. It is suggested that there may be more room for Whiggish historiography of science than is presently deemed acceptable. Alternatively, one may wish to draw a careful distinction between science and its meta-discipline, the historiography of science. Whig historiography conflates the two, and the work of Geikie provides a good illustration of this. (shrink)