导论:18世纪的动态本体论

IF 0.4 2区 艺术学 0 MUSIC
M. Head
{"title":"导论:18世纪的动态本体论","authors":"M. Head","doi":"10.1080/01411896.2021.1949313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The epistemology of the eighteenth century is changing. The great chain of being —influentially announced in the 1930s by Arthur Lovejoy as the eighteenth century’s article of faith—is now under siege from dynamic philosophies reported by historians of the period’s scientific and literary cultures. The great chain, as Lovejoy enshrined it, posited eternal stability. A scale of perfection ran downwards from God to inanimate matter, fixing—but also linking—the variety of all creation. There were no valid prospects for transformation of this order. Following Plato’s dictum, everything that could be, already was. To contemplate novel bodies and forms was to entertain monsters. At stake was not simply a world view, in a humanist sense, but what Foucault—excavating the grounds of knowledge—called the classical episteme. In that “order,” Foucault contended, any knowledge worthy of that name would of necessity turn on taxonomy, describing and evaluating things according to their proper type, their species. In this context, Carl Linnaeus’s binomial taxonomy of the universe of animals, plants and minerals in his Systema Naturae (Leiden, 1735)—a living project through the rest of the century—like the intricate classification of musical styles and genres by Johann Mattheson—are emblematic of (at least a major component of) the period’s official ways of knowing. The stability of the great chain of being, but not its structuring role, is questioned in many recent studies of the history of science. Peter Reill (drawing on a burgeoning literature) argues that at least by mid-century, the eternal order of bodies, divinely created, preformed, and set in motion by the hand of God, was destabilized by vitalism, a broad term for emerging discourses of dynamic, selforganizing systems of life. Resisting a conventional elision of the Enlightenment with “mechanistic rationalism,” and the supposed dominance of preformationism,","PeriodicalId":42616,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: Dynamic Ontologies of the Eighteenth Century\",\"authors\":\"M. Head\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01411896.2021.1949313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The epistemology of the eighteenth century is changing. The great chain of being —influentially announced in the 1930s by Arthur Lovejoy as the eighteenth century’s article of faith—is now under siege from dynamic philosophies reported by historians of the period’s scientific and literary cultures. The great chain, as Lovejoy enshrined it, posited eternal stability. A scale of perfection ran downwards from God to inanimate matter, fixing—but also linking—the variety of all creation. There were no valid prospects for transformation of this order. Following Plato’s dictum, everything that could be, already was. To contemplate novel bodies and forms was to entertain monsters. At stake was not simply a world view, in a humanist sense, but what Foucault—excavating the grounds of knowledge—called the classical episteme. In that “order,” Foucault contended, any knowledge worthy of that name would of necessity turn on taxonomy, describing and evaluating things according to their proper type, their species. In this context, Carl Linnaeus’s binomial taxonomy of the universe of animals, plants and minerals in his Systema Naturae (Leiden, 1735)—a living project through the rest of the century—like the intricate classification of musical styles and genres by Johann Mattheson—are emblematic of (at least a major component of) the period’s official ways of knowing. The stability of the great chain of being, but not its structuring role, is questioned in many recent studies of the history of science. Peter Reill (drawing on a burgeoning literature) argues that at least by mid-century, the eternal order of bodies, divinely created, preformed, and set in motion by the hand of God, was destabilized by vitalism, a broad term for emerging discourses of dynamic, selforganizing systems of life. Resisting a conventional elision of the Enlightenment with “mechanistic rationalism,” and the supposed dominance of preformationism,\",\"PeriodicalId\":42616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01411896.2021.1949313\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MUSIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MUSICOLOGICAL RESEARCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01411896.2021.1949313","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

18世纪的认识论正在发生变化。伟大的存在链——在20世纪30年代被亚瑟·洛夫乔伊(Arthur Lovejoy)宣布为18世纪的信条,影响深远——现在正受到当时科学和文学文化历史学家所报告的动态哲学的围攻。这条大链子,正如洛夫乔伊所供奉的,保证了永恒的稳定。完美的尺度从上帝向下延伸到无生命的物质,固定——但也联系——所有创造物的多样性。这种秩序的转变没有切实的前景。按照柏拉图的格言,一切可能存在的,都已经存在了。思考新奇的身体和形体是在娱乐怪物。利害攸关的不仅仅是一种人道主义意义上的世界观,而是福柯——挖掘知识的基础——所谓的经典知识。福柯认为,在这种“秩序”下,任何名副其实的知识都必然会以分类学为基础,根据事物的适当类型和物种来描述和评估事物。在这种背景下,卡尔·林奈在他的《自然系统》(莱顿,1735年)中对动物、植物和矿物的二项式分类法——一个贯穿整个世纪的活生生的项目——就像约翰·马瑟森对音乐风格和流派的复杂分类一样——是那个时期官方认识方式的象征(至少是一个主要组成部分)。在最近的许多科学史研究中,存在的大链的稳定性受到质疑,而不是它的结构作用。彼得·赖尔(Peter Reill)(引用了一种新兴的文学作品)认为,至少在本世纪中叶,由上帝之手创造、塑造和启动的身体的永恒秩序,被生机论破坏了,生机论是一个广义的术语,指的是动态的、自组织的生命系统的新兴话语。为了抵制传统上对启蒙运动的“机械理性主义”和预形成论的主导地位,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introduction: Dynamic Ontologies of the Eighteenth Century
The epistemology of the eighteenth century is changing. The great chain of being —influentially announced in the 1930s by Arthur Lovejoy as the eighteenth century’s article of faith—is now under siege from dynamic philosophies reported by historians of the period’s scientific and literary cultures. The great chain, as Lovejoy enshrined it, posited eternal stability. A scale of perfection ran downwards from God to inanimate matter, fixing—but also linking—the variety of all creation. There were no valid prospects for transformation of this order. Following Plato’s dictum, everything that could be, already was. To contemplate novel bodies and forms was to entertain monsters. At stake was not simply a world view, in a humanist sense, but what Foucault—excavating the grounds of knowledge—called the classical episteme. In that “order,” Foucault contended, any knowledge worthy of that name would of necessity turn on taxonomy, describing and evaluating things according to their proper type, their species. In this context, Carl Linnaeus’s binomial taxonomy of the universe of animals, plants and minerals in his Systema Naturae (Leiden, 1735)—a living project through the rest of the century—like the intricate classification of musical styles and genres by Johann Mattheson—are emblematic of (at least a major component of) the period’s official ways of knowing. The stability of the great chain of being, but not its structuring role, is questioned in many recent studies of the history of science. Peter Reill (drawing on a burgeoning literature) argues that at least by mid-century, the eternal order of bodies, divinely created, preformed, and set in motion by the hand of God, was destabilized by vitalism, a broad term for emerging discourses of dynamic, selforganizing systems of life. Resisting a conventional elision of the Enlightenment with “mechanistic rationalism,” and the supposed dominance of preformationism,
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Musicological Research publishes original articles on all aspects of the discipline of music: historical musicology, style and repertory studies, music theory, ethnomusicology, music education, organology, and interdisciplinary studies. Because contemporary music scholarship addresses critical and analytical issues from a multiplicity of viewpoints, the Journal of Musicological Research seeks to present studies from all perspectives, using the full spectrum of methodologies. This variety makes the Journal a place where scholarly approaches can coexist, in all their harmony and occasional discord, and one that is not allied with any particular school or viewpoint.
×
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