权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Research on the Emergentistic Conception of Nature In the Eighteenth Century in France

法国18世纪涌现论自然观研究

基本信息

批准号：
13610046
负责人：
MOTOICHI Terada
金额：
$ 2.3万
依托单位：
Nagoya City University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2001
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2001 至 2004
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

We have examined the emergentistic conception of nature in the 18^<th> Century, especially, that of Boyle, Haller and the Montpellier School and got the following results:Though there are some differences between the conceptions of nature of these three scholars, Boyle's being a chemical corpuscular theory of matter, Haller's a physiological stratificational structuro-functional conception of living beings and that of the Montpellier School also a physiological stratificational but vitalistic conception of living beings consisting of smaller living beings, we have found the following common points: 1) they presuppose something atomic as basic unity in order to consider a whole, 2) they consider the whole as an stratificational order composed of structures of structures or lives of lives, 3) there exists an upper operation corresponding to an upper structure, 4) they are conscious of the need to explain why an new operation which didn't exist on the lower level of structure emerges on t … More he upper level, 5) Ther refer to "emergence", to some "occult quality" or to soul in order to explain it; 6) they develop an emergentistic logic, if they don't refer to something mysterious but continue to rely on a structuro-functional logic. Their mutual conception of nature could be characterized as corpuscular stratificational structuro-functional emergentistic (for abbreviation, we use afterwards emergentistic conception)..Normally it is said that, concerning the conception of nature in the 17^<th> and 18^<th> centuries, mechanism considering the universe as a machine (a clock) was very popular and vitalism opposed to it but finally the former conquered the latter. But this vision of the history of thought tends to lose sight of emrgentistic conceptions of nature. In reality, however, modern science was not totally mechanistic. On the occasion of the revival of atomism, appeared the said modern emergentistic conception of nature and it would develop a holistic and complex vision. A conception of nature obliged to question "emergence" without the word existed in that period and continued to develop and to form an important part of the conception of nature supporting modern science. The corpuscular theory, therefore, isn't a mechanism, either. Because it resulted in a kind of holistic conception of nature. Less

本文考察了18世纪涌现主义的自然观，特别是波义耳、哈勒和蒙彼利埃学派的自然观，得出如下结论：尽管波义耳的自然观是物质的化学微粒论，哈勒的自然观是生物的生理层次结构功能观，蒙彼利埃学派的自然观也是生物的生理层次但生命论的生物观，但它们之间存在着一些差异，但我们发现了以下共同点<th>：1）他们把原子的东西作为基本的统一体来考虑整体，2）他们把整体看作是由结构的结构或生命的生命组成的分层秩序，3）存在着与上层结构相对应的上层操作，4）他们意识到有必要解释为什么一种在较低结构层次上不存在的新操作会出现在较低结构层次上。 ...更多信息 5）他们用“涌现”、“神秘性”或灵魂来解释它; 6）他们发展了一种涌现主义逻辑，如果他们不涉及神秘的东西，而是继续依赖结构功能逻辑的话。他们的共同自然观可以被描述为粒子分层结构功能突现主义（以下简称突现主义）。通常认为，在17、18世纪的自然观中<th><th>，机械论认为宇宙是一台机器（一个时钟），这是非常流行的，活力论反对它，但最终前者战胜了后者。但是，这种思想史的视野往往忽视了自然的emrgenistic概念。然而，实际上，现代科学并不是完全机械的。在原子论复兴之际，出现了上述现代涌现主义自然观，它将发展一种整体性和复杂性的视野。在那个时期存在着一种自然观，它不得不质疑没有“涌现”这个词的“涌现”，并继续发展，成为支持现代科学的自然观的一个重要组成部分。因此，微粒理论也不是一种机制。因为它导致了一种整体的自然观。少