Abstract
The history of science is a highly promising field of inquiry for contemporary scholarship. Alexandre Koyré and Ernst Cassirer are among the major protagonists of the twentieth century and offer an interesting perspective in understanding the development of the history of science in relation to the history of philosophical ideas. The aim of this paper is to show several crucial aspects of both Koyré’s and Cassirer’s work, particularly concerning the role of Platonism in the rise of modern science and the concept of “scientific revolution” underlying their historical analysis. According to the author, it is nonetheless impossible to distinguish Koyré’s and Cassirer’s own reconstructions of modern science from their respective philosophical backgrounds, which belong to very different philosophical traditions such as Husserlian phenomenology and Marburg neo-Kantianism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Koyré 1979. The book is dedicated to Léon Brunschvicg and Étienne Gilson . Before his “conversion” to history of science, Koyré had already composed, during his early stay in Paris, several essays on the German mystical currents in the sixteenth century (Koyré 1971b). See also Koyré (2016, pp. 61–69).
- 2.
Ivi, p. 255. Koyré disagrees with Burtt for having considered the metaphysical assumptions of scientific theories as mere “scaffoldings” that allow for the theories’ constructions. According to Koyré, by contrast, modern science rests not provisionally but intrinsically on metaphysical, permanent assumptions.
- 3.
Koyré 1943, p. 400. “The dissolution of the Cosmos […]: this seems to me to be the most profound revolution achieved or suffered by the human mind since the invention of the Cosmos by the Greeks” (Ivi, p. 404).
- 4.
On this topic see the recent contribution of Ferrarin (2014, pp. 90–116).
- 5.
Koyré 1965, p. 114. See also the remarks about Henry More in Koyré (1957, p. 126), where Koyré underlines that More’s great merit consisted in having provided “some of the most important elements of the metaphysical framework” of modern science. More “succeeded – Koyré states – in grasping the fundamental principle of the new ontology, the infinitization of space , which he asserted with an unflinching and fearless energy”. An interpretation of More that is very similar to that of Koyré was already offered by Burtt (1954, pp. 141–142). But the first historian interested in both More’s theory of space and metaphysics was Ernst Cassirer (see below footnote 14). Note that Koyré 1935 nourished indeed another opinion about More’s relevance in opening the path to Newtonian science (see below footnote 24).
- 6.
Koyré refers in particular to Crombie (1953). Crombie’s interpretation of modern science as, to certain extent, a linear development of Medieval science was already illustrated in his well-known and influential book Augustine to Galileo (Crombie 1952), which Koyré quotes in his essay (Koyré 1973, p. 62, footnote 2). Koyré’s criticism towards both Duhem’s and Crombie’s thesis concerning the “continuity ” in history of science has been recently questioned by Biard (2016).
- 7.
An attempt to interpret the scientific revolution as the outcome of a more general change, both social and historical in early modern time , was provided at the end of the 1940s by Butterflied (1949).
- 8.
This objection is formulated, albeit with some precaution, by Koyré (1946).
- 9.
Indeed, Meyerson was in utter disagreement with the Marburg School and, specifically (as we shall see below), with Cassirer’s rejection of the concept of substance (Meyerson 1951, pp. 443–445, p. 491). Note that Koyré, for his part, was totally in contrast with Marburg neo-Kantianism in what concerns the interpretation of Kant’s thing in itself, which he considered not an infinite task à la Cohen (unendliche Aufgabe) but rather as the realistic, “ metaphysical” ground in perceiving appearances (Koyré 2016, p. 228).
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
See in particular Natorp (1994). The decisive role played by the epistemological interpretation of Plato’s theory of ideas within the Marburg neo-Kantianism is undoubtedly crucial to understanding its interpretation of the modern mathematical science of nature. A fine survey is available in the noteworthy book by Lembeck (1994). See also Servois (2004).
- 13.
Surprisingly enough, Cassirer is only incidentally quoted by Cohen 1994, p. 11.
- 14.
See, in particular, the section of the Problem of Knowledge devoted to the long scientific and philosophical road “from Newton to Kant” (Cassirer 1910–1911, II, pp. 372–397). Here Cassirer deals with thinkers who, at that time , were little known such as Henry More . In addition, he bases his inquiry on the handbooks on mechanics published in the age of Newton’s triumph. Obviously, the history of science has since made enormous progress in this field of research, but Cassirer’s outstanding work remains a pioneering example that even today demands closer consideration.
- 15.
On Cassirer and Lovejoy, see Meyer 2006, pp. 234–235. In his opus magnum, Lovejoy never refers to Cassirer’s Problem of Knowledge or any other works by him, though Lovejoy does quote the two volumes of Leibniz’s writings edited by Cassirer and Artur Buchenau (Leibniz 1904–1906) and (Lovejoy 1936, p. 349, footnote 1). Moreover, Lovejoy had already published a review of this Leibniz edition (Lovejoy 1906). The question of whether Lovejoy was indeed influenced in some way by Cassirer’s interpretation of Leibniz remains still open for discussion.
- 16.
- 17.
Brunschvicg 1993, especially p. 262; see also p. 205, where Brunschvicg quotes Cassirer’s book on Leibniz and laments the fact that both Bertrand Russell and Louis Couturat failed entirely to understand “l’exactitude fondamentale et la profondeur” of this illuminating work.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
An overview of this issue is offered by Seidengart (1995).
- 21.
A minor, but not marginal, disagreement regards specifically the status of the law of inertia as Galileo and Descartes conceived of it (Koyré 1939, pp. 8–9, pp. 90–91).
- 22.
Koyré 1939, p. 215. Koyré adds: “Galileo’s Platonism means also, in Cassirer’s eyes, that Galileo has given the predominance both of function and law over being and substance (ibidem).
- 23.
“It is the pure thought without mixture and not the sense experience that lies at the core of Galileo’s ‘new science’” (Koyré 1973, p. 210).
- 24.
See, for instance, Koyre’s critical review of Cassirer’s book on the Cambridge Platonist (Cassirer 1932), where Koyré contends that Henry More as well as the other exponents of the School of Cambridge was rather connected to Florentine Neo-Platonism representing, Koyré maintains, a “reactionary” orientation (Koyré 1935, p. 146).
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
Cassirer 1946, p. 351. One must remember that Cassirer clearly disagrees with John Randall’s opinion, according to which the Aristotelianism of Padua would have exercised a decisive influence on Galileo.
- 29.
Natorp 1882b. In particular, Natorp underlined that Galileo’s references to Plato could be considered as proof of his greater commitment to the mathematical laws of “mechanics” than to a purely geometrical Platonism (Ivi., p. 206).
- 30.
References
With the exception of The Problem of Knowledge, the works of Ernst Cassirer are quoted from (1998–2009) Cassirer Gesammelte Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe. Recki B (ed). 26 Vols. Meiner Hamburg (henceforth EWC).
Bensaude Vincent B (2016) Koyré, disciple de Meyerson. In Seidengart 2016, pp. 185–204.
Biard J (2016) Koyré et le problème du vide au Moyen Âge: remarques sur le continuisme et le discontinuisme. In Seidengart 2016, pp. 125–145.
Brunschvicg L ([1912] 1993) Les étapes de la philosophie mathématique. Blanchard, Paris.
Brunschvicg L (1936) History and Philosophy. In Klibansky and Paton 1936, pp. 27–34.
Burtt E A (1954 [1924]) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. Anchor Books, New York.
Butterfield H (1949) The Origins of Modern Science. Bell and Sons, London.
Cassirer E (1902) Leibniz’s System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen. Elwert, Marburg (ECW, vol. 1).
Cassirer E (1907) Kant und die moderne Mathematik (Mit Bezug auf Bertrand Russells und Louis Couturats Werke über die Prinzipien der Mathematik). Kant–Studien 12:1–49 (ECW, vol. 9, pp. 37–82).
Cassirer E (1910–1911) Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. 2nd edition. 2 Vols. Bruno Cassirer, Berlin.
Cassirer E (1927) Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Teubner, Leipzig und Berlin (ECW, Vol. 14).
Cassirer E (1932) Die Platonische Renaissance in England und die Schule von Cambridge. Teubner, Leipzig (ECW, Vol. 18).
Cassirer E (1937) Wahrheitsbegriff und Wahrheitsproblem bei Galilei. Scientia 62:121–130, 185–193 (ECW, Vol. 22, pp. 51–72).
Cassirer E (1940) Mathematische Mystik und mathematische Naturwissenschaft. Lychnos 4: 248–265 (ECW, Vol. 22, pp. 248–305).
Cassirer E (1942a) Galileo Galilei: A New Science and a New Spirit. American Scholar 12:5–19 (ECW, Vol. 24, pp. 53–66).
Cassirer E (1942b) G. Pico della Mirandola. A Study in the History of Renaissance. Journal of the History of Ideas 3:123–144, 319–346 (ECW, Vol. 24, pp. 67–113).
Cassirer E (1943) Leibniz and Newton. Philosophical Review: 366–391 (ECW, Vol. 24, pp. 135–159).
Cassirer E (1946) Galileo’s Platonism. In Montague 1946, pp. 277–297 (ECW, Vol. 24, pp. 355–354).
Cohen FH (1994) The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cohen H (1883) Das Prinzip der Infinitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte. Dümmler, Berlin.
Cohen H (1885) Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, 2nd enlarged edition. Dümmler, Berlin.
Crombie AC (1953) Robert Grossetesta and the Origins of Experimental Science 1100–1700. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Crombie AC (1952) Augustine to Galileo. Falcon Press, London.
Ferrari M (2015) Ernst Cassirer and the History of Science. In Tyler and Luft 2015, pp. 11–29.
Ferrari M (2016) Alexandre Koyré et Thomas Kuhn : l’histoire des sciences et les révolutions scientifiques. In Seidengart 2016, pp. 221–244.
Ferrarin A (2014) Galilei e la matematica della natura. ETS, Pisa.
Friedman M (2002) Kuhn and Logical Empiricism. In Nickles 2002, pp. 19–44.
Friedman M (2005) Ernst Cassirer and Philosophy of Science. In Gutting 2005, pp. 71–83.
Friedman M (2010) Ernst Cassirer and Thomas Kuhn: The Neo-Kantian Tradition in the History and Philosophy of Science. In Makkreel and Luft 2010, pp. 177–191.
Fruteau de Laclos F (2009) L’épistémologie d’Émile Meyerson. Une anthropologie de la connaissance. Vrin, Paris.
Fruteau de Laclos, F (2014) Émile Meyerson. Les Belles Lettres, Paris.
Galluzzi P (1994) Gli studi galileiani. In Vinti 1994, pp. 241–261.
Garin, E (2007) Rinascite e rivoluzioni. Movimenti culturali dal XIV al XVIII secolo. Laterza, Roma–Bari.
Gutting G (2005) (ed.) Continental Philosophy of Science. Blackwell, Oxford.
Jorland G (1981) La science dans la philosophie. Les recherches épistémologiques d’Alexandre Koyré. Gallimard, Paris.
Klibansky R, Paton HJ (1936) (eds) Philosophy and History. Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Koyré A. ([1929] 1979) La philosophie de Jacob Boehme. Vrin, Paris.
Koyré A (1931) Die Philosophie Émile Meyerson. Deutsch-französische Rundschau 4:197–217.
Koyré A (1935) Review of Cassirer (1932). Review de l’histoire des religions 111:145–148.
Koyré A (1939) Études galiléennes. Herman, Paris.
Koyré A (1943) Galileo and Plato. Journal of the History of Ideas 4:400–428.
Koyré A (1946) Les « Essais » d’Émile Meyerson. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 39:124–128.
Koyré A (1957) From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Koyré A (1963) Commémoration du cinquantenaire de la publication des Étapes de la philosophie mathématique de Léon Brunschvicg. Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie 57:10–14.
Koyré A (1965) Newtonian Studies. Chapman & Hall, London.
Koyré A (1971a) Études d’histoire de la pensée philosophique. Gallimard, Paris.
Koyré A ([1955] 1971b) Mystiques, spirituels, alchimistes du XVI siècle allemande. Gallimard, Paris.
Koyré A (1973) Études d’histoire de la pensée scientifique. Gallimard, Paris.
Koyré A (2016) De la mystique à la science. Cours, conférences et documents 1922–1962. Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée par P. Redondi. E.H.E.S.S., Paris.
Kuhn T (1970a) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kuhn T (1970b) Alexandre Koyré & History of Science. On an Intellectual Revolution. Encounters 34:67–69.
Kuhn T (1977) The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Leibniz G W (1904–1906) Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. Cassirer E, Buchenau A (eds) 2 vols. Dürr’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.
Lembeck KH (1994) Platon in Marburg. Platonrezeption und Philosophiegeschichtsphilosophie bei Cohen und Natorp. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg.
Lovejoy AO (1906) [Book Review] Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. The Philosophical Review 15:437–438.
Lovejoy AO (1936) The Great Chain of Being. A Study of the History of an Idea. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.).
Makkreel AK, Luft S (2010) (eds) Neo-Kantianism and Contemporary Philosophy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Meyer Th (2006) Ernst Cassirer. Eller & Richter Verlag, Hamburg.
Meyerson É ([1908] 1951) Identité et realité. Vrin, Paris.
Meyerson É (1911) L’histoire du problème de la connaissance de M. Cassirer. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 19:100–129.
Meyerson É (2009) Lettres françaises. Bensaude Vincent B, Telkes–Klein E (eds). CNRS Éditions, Paris.
Montagu M F Ashley (1946) (ed) Studies and Essays of Science and Learning. Offered in Homage to George Sarton on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday 31 August 1944. Schuman, New York.
Natorp P ([1921] 1994) Platos Ideenlehre. Eine Einführung in den Idealismus. 2nd edition, Verlag, Meiner.
Natorp P (1882a) Descartes’ Erkenntnistheorie. Eine Studie zur Vorgeschichte des Kritizismus. Elwert, Marburg.
Natorp P (1882b) Galilei als Philosoph. Philosophische Monatshefte 18:193–229.
Natorp P (1882c) Die kosmologische Reform des Kopernikus in ihrer Bedeutung für die Philosophie. Preussische Jahrbücher 41:355–375.
Natorp P (1912) Kant und die Marburger Schule. Kant-Studien 17:193–221.
Natorp P (1985) Leibniz und der Materialismus. Studia Leibnitiana 17:3–14.
Nickles T (2002) Thomas Kuhn. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Seidengart J (1995) Cassirer et la philosophie des sciences en France. Rivista di storia della filosofia 50:753–783.
Seidengart J (2016) (ed) Vérité scientifique et vérité philosophique dans l’œuvre d’Alexandre Koyré. Suivi d’un inédit sur Galilée. Les Belles Lettres, Paris.
Servois J (2004) Paul Natorp et la théorie platonicienne des idées. Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, Lille.
Sieg U (1994) Aufstieg und Niedergang des Marburger Neukantianismus. Die Geschichte einer philosophischen Schulgemeinschaft. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg.
Tyler J T, Luft S (2015) (eds) The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer. A Novel Assessment. De Gruyter, Berlin–Boston.
Vinti C (1994) (ed) Alexandre Koyré. L’avventura intellettuale. ESI, Napoli.
Zambelli P (1998) Alexandre Koyré. Alla scuola di Husserl a Gottinga. Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 78:303–354.
Zambelli P (1999) Alexandre Koyré im „Mekka der Mathematik”. Naturwissenschaften Technik Medizin 23:208–230.
Zambelli P (2016) Alexandre Koyré in incognito. Olschki, Firenze.
Acknowledgements
I would like to warmly thank Shimon Shemtov and Natalia Iacobelli for having helped me with the English corrections of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ferrari, M. (2018). Koyré, Cassirer and the History of Science. In: Pisano, R., Agassi, J., Drozdova, D. (eds) Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61710-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61712-1
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)