Search Results

The Evolution and Genius of Language: Debates in the Berlin Academy

Avi Lifschitz

in Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century

After an overview of the history of the Berlin Academy since its foundation in 1700, this chapter outlines the main questions concerning language that were debated in Berlin of the 1750s. Foremost ... More

After an overview of the history of the Berlin Academy since its foundation in 1700, this chapter outlines the main questions concerning language that were debated in Berlin of the 1750s. Foremost among these issues was Rousseau's discussion of the emergence of language, mind, and society in his Discours sur l’inégalité of 1755. Far from being perceived as a modern version of the Epicurean story, Rousseau's Discours served to undermine the naturalistic thesis. It spurred into action a divine party arguing that language could have never evolved exclusively by human means. Meanwhile, another member of the Academy, Prémontval, combined the cognitive aspects of the language debates with the ‘genius of language’ discourse, or the thesis that language reflected and conditioned the cultural outlook of its speakers. His synthesis led to the declaration of the topic of the 1759 contest: the reciprocal influence of language and opinions.Less

A Point of Convergence and New Departures: The 1759 Contest on Language and Opinions

Avi Lifschitz

in Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century

The chapter is dedicated to the Berlin contest of 1759 on the reciprocal influence of language and opinions. While most contestants tried to answer the question by recasting it as a historical ... More

The chapter is dedicated to the Berlin contest of 1759 on the reciprocal influence of language and opinions. While most contestants tried to answer the question by recasting it as a historical account of the evolution of language, Johann David Michaelis focused on the set topic while elaborating a panoramic view of language as an ongoing project of a living community. Michaelis's principled objection to invented scientific idioms and his espousal of the common use of the vernacular had strong political overtones. He repeatedly compared language to political democracy and discussed several Epicurean themes in a delicate manner. The combined effect of the 1759 prize contest and the local discussions of Rousseau's conundrums led to what was commonly perceived as an insurmountable stalemate. The chapter ends with an overview of the new challenges elaborated by Formey, Mendelssohn, and Hamann.Less

Conclusion and a Glimpse into the Future

Avi Lifschitz

in Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century

This postscript begins with an overview of further developments in the 1780s, among them the complex combination of innatism with naturalism, Frederick the Great's essay on German language and ... More

This postscript begins with an overview of further developments in the 1780s, among them the complex combination of innatism with naturalism, Frederick the Great's essay on German language and literature, and the 1784 contest on the universality of French. The chapter concludes with a re-assessment of the role of German thinkers in the eighteenth-century Republic of Letters. It argues for the close reconstruction of intellectual debates and contexts instead of their examination through national perspectives, as in Isaiah Berlin's ‘Counter-Enlightenment’ thesis.Less

Teleology, Cosmology, and Least Action

in The Man Who Flattened the Earth: Maupertuis and the Sciences in the Enlightenment

This chapter discusses Maupertuis's mature formulation of a teleological mechanics as the basis for a rationalist theology and a proof for God's existence. When Voltaire rather perversely entered the ... More

This chapter discusses Maupertuis's mature formulation of a teleological mechanics as the basis for a rationalist theology and a proof for God's existence. When Voltaire rather perversely entered the polemic in defense of König, the dispute became a full-blown literary quarrel, involving the Prussian king as well as the Berlin Academy. At stake in this apparent priority dispute were honor and reputation, certainly, but also the credibility of mechanics based on the principle of least action. In the aftermath of this bitter controversy, Maupertuis returned to the problems of generation and heredity, extending his earlier speculations on active matter and organization. Furthermore, this chapter argues that convincing proofs for God's existence must come instead from the general laws of nature. Such are the laws of motion “founded on the attributes of a supreme Intelligence.”Less

Tackling the Naturalistic Conundrum: Instincts and Conjectural History to 1771

Avi Lifschitz

in Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century

This chapter traces new impulses in the 1760s such as the first publication of Leibniz's Nouveaux essais, the 1763 contest on certitude in metaphysics, and investigations of animal instincts. At the ... More

This chapter traces new impulses in the 1760s such as the first publication of Leibniz's Nouveaux essais, the 1763 contest on certitude in metaphysics, and investigations of animal instincts. At the end of the 1760s, despite some exasperation with the naturalistic thesis, the Academy announced its prize question for 1771. It required an explanation of how initially speechless human beings could have invented language on their own. Though Michaelis submitted an entry, the prize went on this occasion to Johann Gottfried Herder. Herder's prize essay recast the question while trying to save the human origin of language from both its detractors and its inadequate defenders. This engagement with the preceding debate should corroborate the recent reassessment of Herder's significance as a central thinker of the Enlightenment rather than its enemy.Less

Speculative Philosophy at the Berlin Academy

Christian Leduc

in History of Universities Volume XXXIII/2

This contribution focuses on the way in which the relationship between the fields of philosophy and science was the object of intense debate at the Berlin Academy. The contribution analyses some key ... More

This contribution focuses on the way in which the relationship between the fields of philosophy and science was the object of intense debate at the Berlin Academy. The contribution analyses some key papers in which members of the academy try to determine what they call the ‘academic spirit’. An important source is Maupertuis’s lecture, in which he explains his views, as president, about the division of classes and the advantages of carrying out research in an academy. But there are other important contributions; particularly that of Formey who, as secretary, wrote several papers on these questions, but also of Dieudonné Thiebault, Jakob Wegelin, and Christian Garve. These discussions took place at distinct periods and express different ways of conceiving of the production of academic scholarship. Most importantly, their representation of speculative philosophy changed, to the extent that some believed that this field should no longer be discussed in the context of the academy. Christian Garve maintains this view, which expresses a major change in the history of the institution. This position is also accompanied by a gradual disappearance of speculative reflections.Less

Building a Scientific Community

Kelly Joan Whitmer

in The Halle Orphanage as Scientific Community: Observation, Eclecticism, and Pietism in the Early Enlightenment

This chapter focuses on the efforts of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus and the first director of the Orphanage, August Hermann Francke, to devise a “new way” to teach ... More

This chapter focuses on the efforts of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus and the first director of the Orphanage, August Hermann Francke, to devise a “new way” to teach mathematics and experimental physics in the Orphanage schools—and to turn the school into a space for research by assembling a collection of curious things, including a variety of scientific instruments such as burning mirrors and an air pump. Tschirnhaus is a figure commonly associated with the German Enlightenment, yet he was attracted to Pietism, particularly the early face of movement in Germany: Philipp Jakob Spener. Francke hosted Tschirnhaus at the Orphanage and took his recommendations very seriously. This chapter also considers both Leibniz and Francke’s interest in using the combined resources of the Orphanage and the Berlin Academy of Sciences, which Francke joined in 1701, to attract the attention of Tsar Peter I and to found a Protestant mission capable that would challenge the success of Jesuit missions abroad.Less

Measuring Music

Roger Mathew Grant

in Beating Time and Measuring Music in the Early Modern Era

Through the long eighteenth century, the relationship between motion and time was rewritten. Time, in this new view, was no longer a conceptual descendant of motion but was, in its new form, ... More

Through the long eighteenth century, the relationship between motion and time was rewritten. Time, in this new view, was no longer a conceptual descendant of motion but was, in its new form, absolute: a demarcated backdrop against which events were situated. Discourses on meter reflected this shift in time's epistemological grounding. Meter, explained anew, was no longer a motion, the beat and the measure finally parted ways in this transition. Theorists in the eighteenth century shifted the focus of their explanation from the physical act of the beat to the properties of the measure, and the edifice that had once joined meter, character, and tempo began to shatter. Kirnberger's Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik drew on the particular images and pieces of language associated with absolute time in natural philosophy and mathematics. In this document, Kirnberger reimagined meter as an ongoing, dynamic division of absolute time.Less

The Periodic System and Its Influence on Research and Education in Germany between 1870 and 1910

Gisela Boeck

in Early Responses to the Periodic System

In 1895 Karl Seubert (1851–1942) published some of the most important papers by Lothar Meyer (1830–1895) and Dmitrii I. Mendeleev (1834–1907) on the so-called natural system of elements. He wrote: ... More

In 1895 Karl Seubert (1851–1942) published some of the most important papers by Lothar Meyer (1830–1895) and Dmitrii I. Mendeleev (1834–1907) on the so-called natural system of elements. He wrote: … At first it seems incomprehensible to today’s reader of these essays that the general reception of the system was delayed for many years even though it was presented in a final form and its benefit for theoretical, practical and pedagogical purposes had been explained in detail… . Seubert discovered a lack of interest in the field of inorganic chemistry, but also an inadequate description of the system. He remarked that Meyer’s explanations were too short, and Mendeleev’s too circuitous. The system became a resounding success when the deductions which were drawn from it were confirmed by experiments in rapid succession: the selection of the atomic weight with respect to the known number of equivalents, as in the case of indium and uranium; the change in the order, regardless of the valid atomic weights, such as the platinum group; and, last but not least, the prediction of new elements and their chemical properties which were proved true with the discoveries of scandium, gallium and germanium quickly one after the other. The brilliant vision and the boldness of Mendelejeff led the system to its unquestioned victory. Seubert was Meyer’s colleague for many years. From 1878 to 1895, they worked together on the redetermination of atomic weights and published several papers on this topic. Seubert was the first biographer to write about Meyer and was responsible for publishing his most important papers. Nevertheless, Seubert regarded Mendeleev’s role in the discovery of the periodic system to be of greater importance. This is shown by the last sentence of the previously quoted passage. Seubert’s remark elicits two questions: First, why did Seubert consider Meyer’s role in the discovery of the periodic system as less important? Second, was its reception in Germany truly delayed? These questions are connected to several different factors: politics within German chemistry; didactic approaches to teaching chemistry in schools and universities; and the role of the periodic system in the public sphere. Less