Advertisement

O Organism, Where Art Thou? Old and New Challenges for Organism-Centered Biology

  • Jan BaedkeEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses theoretical challenges, still relevant today, that arose in the first decades of the twentieth century related to the concept of the organism. During this period, new insights into the plasticity and robustness of organisms as well as their complex interactions fueled calls, especially in the UK and in the German-speaking world, for grounding biological theory on the concept of the organism. This new organism-centered biology (OCB) understood organisms as the most important explanatory and methodological unit in biological investigations. At least three theoretical strands can be distinguished in this movement: Organicism, dialectical materialism, and (German) holistic biology. This paper shows that a major challenge of OCB was to describe the individual organism as a causally autonomous and discrete unit with consistent boundaries and, at the same time, as inextricably interwoven with its environment. In other words, OCB had to conciliate individualistic with anti-individualistic perspectives. This challenge was addressed by developing a concept of life that included functionalist and metabolic elements, as well as biochemical and physical ones. It allowed for specifying organisms as life forms that actively delimit themselves from the environment. Finally, this paper shows that the recent return to the concept of the organism, especially in the so-called “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” is challenged by similar anti-individualistic tendencies. However, in contrast to its early-twentieth-century forerunner, today’s organism-centered approaches have not yet offered a solution to this problem.

Keywords

Organism Organicism Dialectical materialism Holistic biology Biological individual Life Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Daniel Brooks, Abigail Nieves Delgado, Richard Gawne, Nick Hopwood, Alessandro Minelli, Erik L. Peterson, Helmut Pulte, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank the session audiences at the meeting of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science in São Paulo (Brazil, 2017) and at the workshop ‘New Styles of Thought and Practices in Early 20th century Biology: Epistemologies and Politics’ in Bochum (Germany, 2016) for feedback on presentations on this topic. In addition, I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the German Research Foundation (DFG; Project No. BA 5808/1-1) and the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (KLI), Vienna.

References

  1. Abir-Am, P.G. 1987. The Biotheoretical Gathering, Transdisciplinary Authority and the Incipient Legitimation of Molecular Biology in the 1930s: New Perspective on the Historical Sociology of Science. History of Science 25: 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, G.E. 1980. Dialectical Materialism in Modern Biology. Science and Nature 3: 43–57.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, G.E. 2005. Mechanism, Vitalism and Organicism in Late Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Biology: The Importance of Historical Context. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alverdes, F. 1932. Die Ganzheitsbetrachtung in der Biologie. Berlin: Elsner.Google Scholar
  5. Amidon, K.S. 2008. Adolf Meyer-Abich, Holism, and the Negotiation of Theoretical Biology. Biological Theory 3: 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baedke, J. 2017. The New Biology of the Social: Shaping Humans’ Future, Science, and Public Health. In Imagined Futures in Science, Technology and Society, eds. G. Verschraegen, F. Vandermoere, L. Brackmans, and B. Segaert, 45–64. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Baedke, J. 2018. Above the Gene, Beyond Biology: Towards a Philosophy of Epigenetics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baedke, J. forthcoming. What is a Biological Individual? In Old Questions and Young Approaches to Animal Evolution, eds. J.M. Martín-Durán and B.C. Vellutini. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bateson, P. 2005. The Return of the Whole Organism. Journal of Biosciences 30: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernal, J.D. 1935. Engels and Science (Labour Monthly Pamphlets 6). London: Trinity Trust.Google Scholar
  11. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1928. Kritische Theorie der Formbildung. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  12. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1930. Tatsachen und Theorien der Formbildung als Weg zum Lebensproblem. Erkenntnis 1: 361–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1932. Theoretische Biologie. Vol. 1. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  14. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1933. Modern Theories of Development. Trans. J.H. Woodger. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1942. Theoretische Biologie, 2 vols. Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  16. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1952. Problems of Life. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  17. Brentari, C. (ed.). 2015. Jakob von Uexküll. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Bukharin, N.I. (ed.). 1931. Science at the Cross Roads. London: Kniga.Google Scholar
  19. Cheung, T. 2006. From the Organism of a Body to the Body of an Organism: Occurrence and Meaning of the Word ‘Organism’ from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries. British Journal for the History of Science 39: 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Child, C.M. 1915. Individuality in Organisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession. Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington.Google Scholar
  22. Driesch, H. 1892. Entwicklungsmechanische Studien. III. Die Verminderung des Furchungsmaterials und ihre Folgen (Weiteres über Theilbildungen). IV. Experimentelle Veränderungen des Typus der Furchung und ihre Folgen (Wirkungen von Wärmezufuhr und von Druck). V. Von der Furchung doppeltbefruchteter Eier. VI. Ueber einige allgemeine Fragen der theoretischen Morphologie. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 55: 1–62.Google Scholar
  23. Driesch, H. 1899. Die Lokalisierung morphogenetischer Vorgänge: Ein Beweis vitalistischen Geschehens. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  24. Driesch, H. 1908. The Science and Philosophy of the Organism. London: Black.Google Scholar
  25. Driesch, H. 1914. The Problem of Individuality. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  26. Dürken, B. 1936. Entwicklungsbiologie und Ganzheit. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  27. Ebeling, A.H. 1913. The Permanent Life of Connective Tissue Outside of the Organism. Journal of Experimental Medicine 17: 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Emerson, A.E. 1939. Social Coordination and the Superorganism. American Midland Naturalist 21: 182–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freyhofer, H.H. 1982. The Vitalism of Hans Driesch. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, A.H., C.L. Kwapich, and M. Lang. 2013. The Roots of Multilevel Selection: Concepts of Biological Individuality in the Early Twentieth Century. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 35: 505–532.Google Scholar
  31. Gilbert, S.F. 2014. A Holobiont Birth Narrative: The Epigenetic Transmission of the Human Microbiome. Frontiers in Genetics 5: 282.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilbert, S.F., J. Sapp, and A.I. Tauber. 2012. A Symbiotic View of Life: We Have Never Been Individuals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 87: 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldstein, K. 1934. Der Aufbau des Organismus. The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goodwin, B. 1999. Reclaiming a Life of Quality. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 229–235.Google Scholar
  35. Graham, L.R. 1987. Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Griffiths, P.E., and R.D. Gray. 2001. Darwinism and Developmental Systems. In Cycles of Contingency, eds. S. Oyama, P.E. Griffiths, and R.D. Gray, 195–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  38. Haldane, J.B.S. 1947. What is Life?. New York: Boni and Gaer.Google Scholar
  39. Haldane, J.S. 1884. Life and Mechanism. Mind 9: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haldane, J.S. 1917. Organism and Environment as Illustrated by the Physiology of Breathing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haldane, J.S. 1931. The Philosophical Basis of Biology. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  42. Haldane, J.S. 1935. The Philosophy of a Biologist. Oxford: Claredon.Google Scholar
  43. Hein, H. 1972. The Endurance of the Mechanism—Vitalism Controversy. Journal of the History of Biology 5: 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henderson, L.J. 1913. The Fitness of the Environment. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Henderson, L.J. 1917. The Order of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hertwig, O. 1906. Allgemeine Biologie. Jena: Fischer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hertwig, O. 1922. Der Staat als Organismus. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  48. Hopkins, F.G. 1913. An Address on the Dynamic Side of Biochemistry. British Medical Journal 2: 713–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hopwood, N. 1997. Biology Between University and Proletariat: The Making of a Red Professor. History of Science 35: 367–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huneman, P. 2010. Assessing the Prospects for a Return of Organisms in Evolutionary Biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32: 341–371.Google Scholar
  51. Huxley, J.S. 1912. The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Huxley, J.S. 1926. The Biological Basis of Individuality. Journal of Philosophical Studies 1: 305–319.Google Scholar
  53. Jablonka, E., and M.J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  54. Joravsky, D. 1963. Soviet Marxism and Biology. American Journal of Jurisprudence 8: 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kammerer, P. 1907. Die Nachkommen der spaetgeborenen Salamandra maculosa und der fruehgeborenen Salamandra atra. Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 25: 7–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kant, I. 1902. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Kants gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5, Academy Edition, ed. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer. [Original: 1790/1793].Google Scholar
  57. Koestler, A. 1971. The Case of the Midwife Toad. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  58. Laland, K., and G. Brown. 2018. The Social Construction of Human Nature. In Why We Disagree About Human Nature, eds. T. Lewens and E. Hannon, 127–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Laland, K., B. Matthews, and M.F. Feldman. 2016. An Introduction to Niche Construction Theory. Evolutionary Ecology 30: 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Laland, K., T. Uller, M. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G.B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, and J.Odling-Smee. 2014. Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Yes, Urgently. Nature News 514: 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laland, K., T. Uller, M. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G.B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, and J.Odling-Smee. 2015. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20151019.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laubichler, M. 2001. Mit oder ohne Darwin? Die Bedeutung der darwinschen Selektionstheorie in der Konzeption der Theoretischen Biologie in Deutschland von 1900 bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. In Darwinismus und/als Ideologie, eds. U. Hoßfeld and R. Brömer, 229–262. Berlin: VWB.Google Scholar
  63. Levins, R., and R.C. Lewontin. 1985. The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lewens, Tim. 2017. Human Nature, Human Culture: The Case of Cultural Evolution. Interface Focus 7: 20170018.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lidgard, S., and L.K. Nyhart. 2017. The Work of Biological Individuality: Concepts and Contexts. In Biological Individuality, eds. S. Lidgard and L.K. Nyhart, 17–62. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lillie, R.S. 1945. General Biology and Philosophy of Organism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Linsbauer, K. 1934. Individuum—System—Organismus: Ein Beitrag zum Mechanismus-Vitalismus-Problem. Mitteilungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Steiermark 71: 63–77.Google Scholar
  68. Lloyd Morgan, C. 1926. The Concept of the Organism, Emergent and Resultant. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 27: 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Meyer, A. 1935. Krisenepochen und Wendepunkte des biologischen Denkens. Jena:Fischer.Google Scholar
  70. Meyer-Abich, A. 1940. Hauptgedanken des Holismus. Acta Biotheoretica 5: 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Meyer-Abich, A. 1942. Kant und das biologische Denken. Acta Biotheoretica 6: 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meyer-Abich, A. 1948. Naturphilosophie auf neuen Wegen. Stuttgart: Hippokrates.Google Scholar
  73. Meyer-Abich, A. 1956. Organismen als Holismen. Acta Biotheoretica 11: 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Minelli, A., and G. Fusco (eds.). 2008. Evolving Pathways. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Needham, J. 1928. Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 3: 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Needham, J. 1929. The Skeptical Biologist. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  77. Needham, J. 1936. Order and Life. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Needham, J. 1937. Integrative Levels. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  79. Nicholson, D.J. 2014. The Return of the Organism as a Fundamental Explanatory Concept in Biology. Philosophy Compass 9: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nicholson, D.J. 2018. Reconceptualizing the Organism: From Complex Machine to Flowing Stream. In Everything Flows, eds. D.J. Nicholson and J. Dupré, 139–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nicholson, D.J., and R. Gawne. 2014. Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 47: 243–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nicholson, D.J., and R. Gawne. 2015. Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37: 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Niewöhner, J. 2011. Epigenetics: Embedded Bodies and the Molecularisation of Biography and Milieu. BioSocieties 6: 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pepper, J.W., and M.D. Herron. 2008. Does Biology Need an Organism Concept?’ Biological Reviews 84: 627–628.Google Scholar
  85. Peterson, E.L. 2011. The Excluded Philosophy of Evo-Devo? Revisiting C. H. Waddington’s Failed Attempt to Embed Alfred North Whitehead’s ‘Organicism’ in Evolutionary Biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33: 301–320.Google Scholar
  86. Peterson, E.L. 2016. The Life Organic. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  87. Pigliucci, M., and G.B. Müller (eds.). 2010. Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. Pouvreau, D. 2009. The Dialectical Tragedy of the Concept of Wholeness: Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Biography Revisited. Marblehead, MA: ISCE Publishing.Google Scholar
  89. Prenant, M. 1938. Biology and Marxism. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  90. Reiß, C. 2007. No Evolution, No Heredity, Just Development—Julius Schaxel and the End of the Evo-Devo Agenda in Jena, 1906–1933: A Case Study. Theory in Biosciences 126: 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Reydon, T.A.C., Dullemeijer, P., and Hemerik, L. 2005. The History of Acta Biotheoretica and the Nature of Theoretical Biology. In Current Themes in Theoretical Biology, eds. T.A.C. Reydon and L. Hemerik, 1–8. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ritter, W.E. 1919. The Unity of the Organism, or the Organismal Conception of Life. 2 vols. Boston: Gorham Press.Google Scholar
  94. Roux, W. 1881. Der Kampf der Teile im Organismus. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  95. Russell, E.S. 1924. The Study of Living Things. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  96. Russell, E.S. 1930. The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  97. Russell, E.S. 1950. The ‘Drive’ Element in Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1: 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sarkar, S. 1992. Science, Philosophy, and Politics in the Work of J. B. S. Haldane, 1922–1937. Biology and Philosophy 7: 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schaxel, J. 1917. Mechanismus, Vitalismus und kritische Biologie. Biologisches Centralblatt 37: 188–196.Google Scholar
  100. Schaxel, J. 1919. Grundzüge der Theoriebildung in der Biologie. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  101. Schaxel, J. 1931. Das biologische Individuum. Erkenntnis 1: 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schrödinger, E. 1944. What is Life?. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  103. Sershantow, W.F. 1978. Einführung in die Methodologie der modernen Biologie. Jena:Fischer.Google Scholar
  104. Sheehan, H.M. 2007. J. D. Bernal: Philosophy, Politics and the Science of Science. Journal of Physics 57: 29–39.Google Scholar
  105. Smuts, J. 1926. Holism and Evolution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  106. Sölch, D. 2016. Wheeler and Whitehead: Process Biology and Process Philosophy in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of the History of Ideas 77: 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Spemann, H., and Schotté, O.E. 1932. Über xenoplastische Transplantation als Mittel zur Analyse der embryonalen Induktion. Naturwissenschaften 20: 463–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stahl, G.E. 1684. Dissertatio Medica Inauguralis De Intestinis…. Jena.Google Scholar
  109. Stockard, C.R. 1921. Developmental Rate and Structural Expression: An Experimental Study of Twins, ‘Double Monsters’ and Single Deformities, and the Interaction among Embryonic Organs during Their Origin and Development. American Journal of Anatomy 28: 115–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sultan, S.E. 2015. Organism and Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Svensson, E.I. 2018. On Reciprocal Causation in the Evolutionary Process. Evolutionary Biology 45: 11–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-017-9431-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Toepfer, G. 2011. Organismus. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Biologie, vol. 2, ed. G. Toepfer, 777–842. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Turner, J.S. 2000. The Extended Organism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Uexküll, J.v. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  115. Uexküll, J.v. 1928. Theoretische Biologie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Ungerer, E. 1926. Die Regulationen der Pflanzen. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Ungerer, E. 1965. Die Erkenntnisgrundlagen der Biologie. Ihre Geschichte und ihr gegenwärtiger Stand. In Handbuch der Biologie, vol. 1, ed. F. Gessner, 1–94. Konstanz: Athenaion.Google Scholar
  118. Vargas, A.O., Q. Krabichler, and C. Guerrero-Bosagna. 2016. An Epigenetic Perspective on the Midwife Toad Experiments of Paul Kammerer (1880–1926). Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B 328: 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Waddington, C.H. 1940. Organisers & Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Waddington, C.H. 1942. The Epigenotype. Endeavour 1: 18–20.Google Scholar
  121. Waddington, C.H. 1957. The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  122. Waggoner, M.R., and T. Uller. 2015. Epigenetic Determinism in Science and Society. New Genetics and Society 34: 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Walsh, D.M. 2015. Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Weiss, P.A. 1940. The Problem of Cell Individuality in Development. American Naturalist 74: 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wheeler, W.M. 1911. The Ant Colony as an Organism. Journal of Morphology 22: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wheeler, W.M. 1920. The Termitodoxa, or Biology and Society. The Scientific Monthly 10: 113–124.Google Scholar
  127. Wheeler, W.M. 1928. The Social Insects. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  128. Whitehead, A.N. 1925. Science and the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Willmer, E.N. 1965. Cells and Tissues in Culture. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  130. Woltereck, R. 1909. Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen über Artveränderung, speziel über das Wesen quantitativer Artunterschiede bei Daphniden. Verhandlungen der deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft 19: 110–173.Google Scholar
  131. Woodger, J.H. 1929. Biological Principles. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  132. Woodger, J.H. 1930–1931. The ‘Concept of Organism’ and the Relation between Embryology and Genetics. Part I-III. The Quarterly Review of Biology 5: 1–22, 438–463; 6: 178–207.Google Scholar
  133. Zavadovsky, B. 1931. The ‘Physical’ and ‘Biological’ in the Process of Organic Evolution. In Science at the Cross Roads, ed. N.I. Bukharin, 69–80. London: Kniga.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations