{"title":"伊曼纽尔-康德和安德烈娅-比娜:被误解和忽视的作家","authors":"Paolo Grillenzoni","doi":"10.1515/kant-2024-2019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his third essay on earthquakes, Kant refers to “<jats:italic>Pater Bina</jats:italic>’s” electric interpretation of seismic phenomena. Although not a distinguished scholar, and maybe for that reason frequently confused with a certain “Father Isidore Binet”, Bina was nevertheless a noteworthy author. A Cassinese benedictine, Andrea Bina was a philosopher interested in sciences just like Kant; he studied Newton, translated Wolff, invented a seismoscope and was appreciated by his contemporaries at home and beyond the Alps. Kant’s laconic quotation, followed by a value judgement regarding only Bina’s “audacity”, raises some questions, including, <jats:italic>in primis</jats:italic> those about the meaning of his hasty judgment. A plausible well-grounded answer should be looked for in the bio-bibliographical outline of the <jats:italic>neglected</jats:italic> author and in the perusal of his writings. The analysis of Bina’s <jats:italic>Ragionamento sopra le cagioni de’ terremoti</jats:italic> (1751) contributes to our knowledge of the eighteenth-century cultural background and helps us understand the degree of knowledge of the seismic phenomena acquired by men who – amidst many difficulties and hindered by the limits of their science – could only rely on secondhand data often imbued with misconceptions. Comparing Bina’s work – although indirectly – with Kant’s <jats:italic>Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen</jats:italic> (1756) may help bring to light some convergences, as well as differences, which might be of use in clarifying some peculiarities of the Prussian <jats:italic>Naturforscher</jats:italic>.","PeriodicalId":45952,"journal":{"name":"KANT-STUDIEN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immanuel Kant und Andrea Bina: Ein Autor, missverstanden und übersehen\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Grillenzoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kant-2024-2019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his third essay on earthquakes, Kant refers to “<jats:italic>Pater Bina</jats:italic>’s” electric interpretation of seismic phenomena. Although not a distinguished scholar, and maybe for that reason frequently confused with a certain “Father Isidore Binet”, Bina was nevertheless a noteworthy author. A Cassinese benedictine, Andrea Bina was a philosopher interested in sciences just like Kant; he studied Newton, translated Wolff, invented a seismoscope and was appreciated by his contemporaries at home and beyond the Alps. Kant’s laconic quotation, followed by a value judgement regarding only Bina’s “audacity”, raises some questions, including, <jats:italic>in primis</jats:italic> those about the meaning of his hasty judgment. A plausible well-grounded answer should be looked for in the bio-bibliographical outline of the <jats:italic>neglected</jats:italic> author and in the perusal of his writings. The analysis of Bina’s <jats:italic>Ragionamento sopra le cagioni de’ terremoti</jats:italic> (1751) contributes to our knowledge of the eighteenth-century cultural background and helps us understand the degree of knowledge of the seismic phenomena acquired by men who – amidst many difficulties and hindered by the limits of their science – could only rely on secondhand data often imbued with misconceptions. Comparing Bina’s work – although indirectly – with Kant’s <jats:italic>Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen</jats:italic> (1756) may help bring to light some convergences, as well as differences, which might be of use in clarifying some peculiarities of the Prussian <jats:italic>Naturforscher</jats:italic>.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KANT-STUDIEN\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KANT-STUDIEN\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2024-2019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KANT-STUDIEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2024-2019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
康德在关于地震的第三篇文章中提到了 "比纳神父 "对地震现象的电学解释。比纳虽然不是一位杰出的学者,也许因此经常被人与某位 "伊西多尔-比纳神父 "混淆,但他却是一位值得一提的作家。安德烈亚-比纳是一位卡西尼德教士,他是一位对科学感兴趣的哲学家,就像康德一样;他研究牛顿,翻译沃尔夫,发明了地震仪,在国内和阿尔卑斯山外都受到同时代人的赞赏。康德轻描淡写地引述了比纳的话,随后只对比纳的 "胆识 "做出了价值判断,这引发了一些问题,其中最主要的是关于康德草率判断的含义。应该从这位被忽视的作家的生平简介和他的著作中寻找合理的答案。对比纳的《Ragionamento sopra le cagioni de' terremoti》(1751 年)的分析有助于我们了解十八世纪的文化背景,并帮助我们理解那些在重重困难中并受制于其科学局限性、只能依靠往往充满误解的二手资料的人们对地震现象的了解程度。将比纳的著作与康德的《Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen》(1756 年)进行比较--尽管是间接的--可能有助于揭示一些相同点和不同点,这可能有助于澄清普鲁士自然科学家的一些特殊性。
Immanuel Kant und Andrea Bina: Ein Autor, missverstanden und übersehen
In his third essay on earthquakes, Kant refers to “Pater Bina’s” electric interpretation of seismic phenomena. Although not a distinguished scholar, and maybe for that reason frequently confused with a certain “Father Isidore Binet”, Bina was nevertheless a noteworthy author. A Cassinese benedictine, Andrea Bina was a philosopher interested in sciences just like Kant; he studied Newton, translated Wolff, invented a seismoscope and was appreciated by his contemporaries at home and beyond the Alps. Kant’s laconic quotation, followed by a value judgement regarding only Bina’s “audacity”, raises some questions, including, in primis those about the meaning of his hasty judgment. A plausible well-grounded answer should be looked for in the bio-bibliographical outline of the neglected author and in the perusal of his writings. The analysis of Bina’s Ragionamento sopra le cagioni de’ terremoti (1751) contributes to our knowledge of the eighteenth-century cultural background and helps us understand the degree of knowledge of the seismic phenomena acquired by men who – amidst many difficulties and hindered by the limits of their science – could only rely on secondhand data often imbued with misconceptions. Comparing Bina’s work – although indirectly – with Kant’s Fortgesetzte Betrachtung der seit einiger Zeit wahrgenommenen Erderschütterungen (1756) may help bring to light some convergences, as well as differences, which might be of use in clarifying some peculiarities of the Prussian Naturforscher.
期刊介绍:
Publications in the Kant-Studien have a dual focus: firstly contributions to the interpretation, history and editorial questions of Kant"s philosophy, and secondly systematic debates on transcendental philosophy. In addition, there are investigations on Kant"s precursors and on the effects of his philosophy. The journal also contains a documentation section, in which the current state of research is indicated by means of a continually updated bibliography with reviews and references.