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

Writing the History of the Mind: philosophy and science in France 1900-1960

书写心灵的历史：法国的哲学和科学 1900-1960

基本信息

批准号：
AH/D500990/1
负责人：
Cristina Chimisso
金额：
$ 2.88万
依托单位：
The Open University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2006
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2006 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FD500990%2F1
关键词：
Writing History Mind philosophy science

项目摘要

In the first half of the twentieth century, a remarkable number of French intellectuals indicated the mind as the main object of their research. Traditionally, the study of the mind and of its limits and capabilities was the domain of philosophy. However, in the first decades of the twentieth century, practitioners of emergent new disciplines were increasingly competing with philosophers: ethnologists, sociologists, psychologists and historians of science were all claiming to study'how people think'. The historian of philosophy, and founder of the Paris institute d'Ethnologie, Lucien Levy-Bruhl 'explained' to European readers 'how natives think' and gave scientific currency to the term 'mentality', which quickly spread to the other social sciences, and to history of science, philosophy and history. The historians of science employed the concept of mentality when analysing the various historical stages of the sciences. By showing that past scholars had different goals, world-views and values from those of modern people, they attacked the all-too-common anachronistic attitude of projecting modern scientific concepts and values onto past texts. Some philosophers changed the way in which they studied the mind: they discarded abstract reflection in favour of an empirical analysis of philosophical texts. Their examination was aimed at understanding how the authors of these texts reasoned. They called their analysis of the mind through texts the 'experimental method' of philosophy. Those among them, such as the historian of philosophy Leon Brunschvicg, who believed that the mind changes in time, aimed to write a 'history of the mind', that is a history of the ways in which human beings have developed their modern rationality. Some philosophers, including Brunschvicg's student Bachelard, turned to history of science, for in their view science showed the highest points of human rationality. Historians of science had to struggle to create spaces for their disciplines and confer on them academic prestige, while some practitioners of more traditional disciplines such as philosophy sometimes feared what they saw as an erosion of their spaces. By focusing in particular on historians of philosophy and history of science, I show the connections between these scholars' different views of the mind and of history, their commitment either to more traditional or to newer disciplines, and their different family backgrounds, and social positions. The scholars' alliances are considered both within academia I the University of Paris in particular- and outside it, for instance in independent institutes and political parties, (e.g. the parties of the Popular Front). I show how these intellectuals' ideas and agendas were indissolubly linked with their social and institutional positions.This study will impact on the way we understand the intellectual life of the period, overcoming the fragmentation of current scholarship that has failed to reconstruct the historical links between the scholars and ideas in question, as these have been appropriated by different disciplines. Crucially, it shows the connection between disciplines, their institutional spaces, social positions of their practitioners, and ideas about history and the mind. It also explains the historical roots of modern French philosophy and epistemology, and their differences with their Anglo-American counterparts. It is also aimed to contribute to the debates about how history of philosophy and history of science should be written, and about the way in which past texts should be interpreted and used. Some of the issues discussed may contribute to current discussions of multiculturalism and relationships between different value systems.

在二十世纪上半叶，相当多的法国知识分子把精神作为他们研究的主要对象。传统上，对心灵及其局限性和能力的研究是哲学的领域。然而，在20世纪的头几十年里，新兴学科的实践者与哲学家的竞争日益激烈：民族学家、社会学家、心理学家和科学史学家都声称要研究“人们是如何思考的”。哲学史家、巴黎民族学研究所的创始人吕西安·列维-布鲁尔向欧洲读者“解释”了“当地人是如何思考的”，并使“心态”一词成为科学术语，这一术语迅速传播到其他社会科学领域，以及科学史、哲学史和历史史。科学史家在分析科学的各个历史阶段时使用了心理的概念。通过展示过去的学者与现代人有着不同的目标、世界观和价值观，他们抨击了将现代科学概念和价值观强加于过去文本的普遍的时代错误态度。一些哲学家改变了他们研究心灵的方式：他们抛弃了抽象的思考，而倾向于对哲学文本进行实证分析。他们考察的目的是了解这些经文的作者是如何推理的。他们把自己通过文本对心灵的分析称为哲学的“实验方法”。其中一些人，比如哲学史家Leon Brunschvicg，他相信人的思想会随着时间的推移而改变，他的目标是写一部“思想的历史”，也就是一部人类发展现代理性的历史。一些哲学家，包括布伦施维克的学生巴舍拉，转向科学史，因为在他们看来，科学显示了人类理性的最高点。科学史家不得不努力为他们的学科创造空间，并赋予他们学术声望，而一些更传统学科（如哲学）的实践者有时担心他们所看到的空间被侵蚀。通过特别关注哲学史和科学史史学家，我展示了这些学者对心灵和历史的不同观点之间的联系，他们对更传统或更新学科的承诺，以及他们不同的家庭背景和社会地位。学者联盟既被认为是学术界内部的，尤其是巴黎大学，也被认为是学术界之外的，例如独立机构和政党（例如人民阵线的政党）。我展示了这些知识分子的思想和议程是如何与他们的社会和制度地位密不可分的。这项研究将影响我们理解这一时期知识分子生活的方式，克服当前学术研究的碎片化，这些学术研究未能重建学者和相关思想之间的历史联系，因为这些联系已被不同的学科所利用。至关重要的是，它展示了学科之间的联系，它们的制度空间，从业者的社会地位，以及关于历史和心灵的想法。它还解释了现代法国哲学和认识论的历史根源，以及它们与英美哲学和认识论的区别。它还旨在促进关于如何编写哲学史和科学史的辩论，以及如何解释和使用过去的文本。所讨论的一些问题可能有助于当前对多元文化主义和不同价值体系之间关系的讨论。