生命的悖论:乔纳斯和谢林论有机体的自主性

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Rivista di Estetica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.4000/ESTETICA.7101
F. Michelini
{"title":"生命的悖论:乔纳斯和谢林论有机体的自主性","authors":"F. Michelini","doi":"10.4000/ESTETICA.7101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After preliminarily pointing to the undeniable differences between Jonas’ philosophical biology and Schelling’s philosophy of nature, I contend that, besides their divergencies, the two philosophers agree on several important points. I then show to what extent, based on these elements of convergence, their two approaches could even be taken as complementary. In the core of my paper I lay emphasis on what I believe to be the main ground for the complementarity of the two philosophical inquiries, that is to say, their common radicalization and superseding of Kant’s principle of self-organization. In this respect – all differences considered – they both can be said to delineate a philosophy of the organic that can fruitfully contribute, even better than Kant’s input, to the currently widely discussed topic of biological autonomy.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":"74 1","pages":"139-157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Paradox of the Living: Jonas and Schelling on the Organism’s Autonomy\",\"authors\":\"F. Michelini\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/ESTETICA.7101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After preliminarily pointing to the undeniable differences between Jonas’ philosophical biology and Schelling’s philosophy of nature, I contend that, besides their divergencies, the two philosophers agree on several important points. I then show to what extent, based on these elements of convergence, their two approaches could even be taken as complementary. In the core of my paper I lay emphasis on what I believe to be the main ground for the complementarity of the two philosophical inquiries, that is to say, their common radicalization and superseding of Kant’s principle of self-organization. In this respect – all differences considered – they both can be said to delineate a philosophy of the organic that can fruitfully contribute, even better than Kant’s input, to the currently widely discussed topic of biological autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"139-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7101\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在初步指出乔纳斯的哲学生物学和谢林的自然哲学之间不可否认的差异之后,我认为,除了他们的分歧之外,这两位哲学家在几个重要的问题上是一致的。然后,我展示了在何种程度上,基于这些趋同的要素,他们的两种方法甚至可以被视为互补。在我论文的核心部分,我强调了我认为这两种哲学探究的互补性的主要基础,也就是说,它们共同的激进化和对康德自组织原则的取代。在这方面——考虑到所有的差异——他们都可以说描绘了一种有机的哲学,这种哲学可以卓有成效地贡献,甚至比康德的输入更好,对目前广泛讨论的生物自主性的话题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Paradox of the Living: Jonas and Schelling on the Organism’s Autonomy
After preliminarily pointing to the undeniable differences between Jonas’ philosophical biology and Schelling’s philosophy of nature, I contend that, besides their divergencies, the two philosophers agree on several important points. I then show to what extent, based on these elements of convergence, their two approaches could even be taken as complementary. In the core of my paper I lay emphasis on what I believe to be the main ground for the complementarity of the two philosophical inquiries, that is to say, their common radicalization and superseding of Kant’s principle of self-organization. In this respect – all differences considered – they both can be said to delineate a philosophy of the organic that can fruitfully contribute, even better than Kant’s input, to the currently widely discussed topic of biological autonomy.
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
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Origins Of Umberto Eco’s Semio-Philosophical Project Alive as You and Me Indexes: Cultural Nature and Natural Culture The Dog Schema The Notion of System in the Work of Umberto Eco: Summa, Structure, Code, Encyclopaedia and Rhizome
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1