Advertisement

Gravity, Polarity and Dialectical Method

  • Barry Gower
Chapter
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 136)

Abstract

There can be few periods in the history of philosophy which match the beginning of the nineteenth century for philosophical vigour. Even today, almost two hundred years later, we profit from the rich legacy of that vitality if only because the roots of much that influences contemporary philosophy lie in themes that were adumbrated at this time. Philosophy became, and has remained, conscious of its own substantive and methodological distinctiveness. It changed its relationship with the empirical sciences in such a way that it started to challenge rather than underwrite their credentials. It began to usurp rather than endorse the role that religious thought had played in people’s lives. Above all, it provided a focus for challenges to the intellectual, moral, and political certainties of the eighteenth century.

Keywords

Polar Force Basic Force Critical Philosophy Dialectical Structure Cricket Ball 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Marx, K. 1975, vol. 1, pp. 29-30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hegel IHP.67; ed. Hoffmeister, p. 97Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hegel IHR 123; ed. Hoffmeister, p. 165.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 7; tr. Wallace p. 11; cf. Hegel IHR 117; ed. Hoffmeister, p. 159.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hegel IHR 117; ed. Hoffmeister, p. 159.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hegel LHP III.322-324; Jub. 19.446-449.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor, C. 1975, p. 232; cf. Hegel Encyclopedia §§ 86–87; tr. Wallace pp. 124-128.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaufmann, W. 1966, p. 168; Mueller, G.E. 1958, pp. 411-414.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann, W. 1966, p. 431.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1927/59, I Ergänzungsband, pp. 77-350; Schelling, F.W.J. von 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1927/59, vol. 2, pp. 269-326Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1927/59, vol. 2, p. 284.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1927/59, vol. 2, p. 288.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 245 Addition; tr. Miller p. 5; tr. Petry I.195,26.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 246 Addition; tr. Millerpp. 11-12; tr. Petry I.203,12.16.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1988, pp. 143-152.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 96 Addition; tr. Wallace p. 141.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 96–98; tr. Wallace pp. 141-144; § 262; tr. Miller pp. 44-47; tr. Petry I. pp. 241-244. For an elucidation, see Buchdahl, G. 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 98; tr. Wallace p. 143.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schelling, F.W.J. von 1927/59, vol. 2, p. 297.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hegel LHP III.456; Jub. 19.587.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kant, I.1970, pp. 77-80; cf. Brittan, G. 1986, pp. 84-85.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 98; tr. Wallace p. 144; WL I.170-176; tr. Miller pp. 178-184; Encyclopedia § 262 Addition; tr. Miller p. 45; tr. Petry I. 241, 13; cf. Buchdahl, G. 1973.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 248; tr. Miller p. 19; tr. Petry I.210,38.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boscovich, R.J. 1763, 1922Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stewart, D. 1877, vol. 5, pp. 87-119; Reid, T. 1849, pp. 323-324; Priestley, J. 1777, sections I and II; Olson, R. 1975, pp. 98-106.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schofield, R.E. 1970, ch. 6; Thackray, A. 1970, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Green, R. 1727, p. 286.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid. p. 289.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Priestley, J. 1772, pp. 391-392; Schofleld, R.E. 1970, p. 245.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Priestley, J. 1777, pp. 218ff.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kant, I.1969, p. 76.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid. p. 35.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid. pp. 24-25.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Herder, J.G. von 1777, IX. 536 et seq.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Needham, J.T. 1748.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartley, D. 1749, pp. 28-29; Willey, B. 1940, pp. 136-142.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burke, E. 1987, pp. 132-134.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid. p. 150.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hutcheson, F. 1755, p. 8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hutcheson, F. 1725; cf. Raphael, D.D. 1975.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hemsterhuis, F. 1809, I.61-90.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Westfall, R.S. 1975; Kubrin, D. 1981; Westfall, R.S. 1984; Dobbs, B.J.T. 1982; Westman, R.S. and J.E. McGuire 1977, pp. 140-141.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Newton, I.1710.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid. p. 323.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Westfall, R.S. 1984, p. 323.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dobbs, B.J.T. 1975, pp. 9-10; Pricipe, L.M. and Weeks, A. 1989.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    McMullin, E. 1978, ch. 2.4.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shea, W. 1986.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hegel LHP III.170-216; Jub. 19.278-327.Google Scholar
  52. 52.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Gower

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations