从和谐到紧张:赫尔穆特-普莱斯纳(Helmuth Plessner)和库尔特-戈尔茨坦(Kurt Goldstein)对雅各布-冯-于克斯库尔(Jakob von Uexküll)的解读。

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Matteo Pagan, Marco Dal Pozzolo
{"title":"从和谐到紧张:赫尔穆特-普莱斯纳(Helmuth Plessner)和库尔特-戈尔茨坦(Kurt Goldstein)对雅各布-冯-于克斯库尔(Jakob von Uexküll)的解读。","authors":"Matteo Pagan, Marco Dal Pozzolo","doi":"10.1007/s40656-024-00607-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper investigates the reception and discussion of Jakob von Uexküll's biological theory by two German thinkers of his time, Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein. It demonstrates how their bio-philosophical perspectives are on the one hand indebted to Uexküll's theory and, on the other, critical of its tendency to excessively harmonize the relationship between living beings and their environment. This original critical reading of the Umweltlehre is rooted in ambiguities within Uexküll's own thought - between a dynamic conception of the organism-environment relationship and the idea of \"conformity to a plan\" -, , which is here examined in the second section. In the third and fourth sections we will then focus on Plessner and Goldstein respectively, demonstrating how for these two authors the harmony between organism and environment is not an original state, but only reveals itself against the background of a tension; as such, it can only be partial, unstable and always changing. The two thinkers avoid the rigid alternative between Darwin's concept of adaptation (Anpassung) and Uexküll's \"fitting into\" (Einpassung) by theorizing the ideal state of the relationship between organism and environment in terms of \"adequacy\" (Adäquatheit) and \"adaptability\" (Adaptiertheit). Between organism and environment there is neither absolute separation nor perfect harmony, but rather a gap which can never be definitively fixed.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10811164/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From the harmony to the tension: Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein's readings of Jakob von Uexküll.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Pagan, Marco Dal Pozzolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40656-024-00607-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper investigates the reception and discussion of Jakob von Uexküll's biological theory by two German thinkers of his time, Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein. It demonstrates how their bio-philosophical perspectives are on the one hand indebted to Uexküll's theory and, on the other, critical of its tendency to excessively harmonize the relationship between living beings and their environment. This original critical reading of the Umweltlehre is rooted in ambiguities within Uexküll's own thought - between a dynamic conception of the organism-environment relationship and the idea of \\\"conformity to a plan\\\" -, , which is here examined in the second section. In the third and fourth sections we will then focus on Plessner and Goldstein respectively, demonstrating how for these two authors the harmony between organism and environment is not an original state, but only reveals itself against the background of a tension; as such, it can only be partial, unstable and always changing. The two thinkers avoid the rigid alternative between Darwin's concept of adaptation (Anpassung) and Uexküll's \\\"fitting into\\\" (Einpassung) by theorizing the ideal state of the relationship between organism and environment in terms of \\\"adequacy\\\" (Adäquatheit) and \\\"adaptability\\\" (Adaptiertheit). Between organism and environment there is neither absolute separation nor perfect harmony, but rather a gap which can never be definitively fixed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10811164/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00607-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00607-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了雅各布-冯-于克斯库尔(Jakob von Uexküll)当时的两位德国思想家赫尔穆特-普莱斯纳(Helmuth Plessner)和库尔特-戈尔茨坦(Kurt Goldstein)对其生物学理论的接受和讨论。本文论证了他们的生物哲学观点是如何一方面借鉴了乌克斯库尔的理论,另一方面又对其过分协调生物与其环境之间关系的倾向提出了批评。对 "优美环境论 "的这一原创性批判性解读植根于乌克斯库尔自身思想中的模糊之处--有机体与环境关系的动态概念与 "符合计划 "思想之间的模糊之处,我们将在第二部分对此进行探讨。在第三和第四部分中,我们将分别关注普莱斯纳(Plessner)和戈尔茨坦(Goldstein),说明对这两位作者而言,有机体与环境之间的和谐并非一种原始状态,而只是在一种紧张关系的背景下才显现出来;因此,这种和谐只能是局部的、不稳定的和始终在变化的。两位思想家从 "适当性"(Adäquatheit)和 "适应性"(Adaptiertheit)的角度对有机体与环境之间关系的理想状态进行了理论阐述,从而避免了达尔文的 "适应"(Anpassung)概念和乌克斯库尔的 "融入"(Einpassung)概念之间的僵化选择。在有机体与环境之间,既没有绝对的分离,也没有完美的和谐,而是存在着永远无法确定的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From the harmony to the tension: Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein's readings of Jakob von Uexküll.

This paper investigates the reception and discussion of Jakob von Uexküll's biological theory by two German thinkers of his time, Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein. It demonstrates how their bio-philosophical perspectives are on the one hand indebted to Uexküll's theory and, on the other, critical of its tendency to excessively harmonize the relationship between living beings and their environment. This original critical reading of the Umweltlehre is rooted in ambiguities within Uexküll's own thought - between a dynamic conception of the organism-environment relationship and the idea of "conformity to a plan" -, , which is here examined in the second section. In the third and fourth sections we will then focus on Plessner and Goldstein respectively, demonstrating how for these two authors the harmony between organism and environment is not an original state, but only reveals itself against the background of a tension; as such, it can only be partial, unstable and always changing. The two thinkers avoid the rigid alternative between Darwin's concept of adaptation (Anpassung) and Uexküll's "fitting into" (Einpassung) by theorizing the ideal state of the relationship between organism and environment in terms of "adequacy" (Adäquatheit) and "adaptability" (Adaptiertheit). Between organism and environment there is neither absolute separation nor perfect harmony, but rather a gap which can never be definitively fixed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信