Boris Kožnjak

In this paper, I offer a detailed reconstruction and a critical analysis of Abraham Maslow’s neglected psychological reading of Thomas Kuhn’s famous dichotomy between ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ science, which Maslow briefly expounded four years after the first edition of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in his small book The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance, and which relies heavily on his extensive earlier general writing in the motivational and personality psychology. Maslow’s Kuhnian ideas, put forward as part of a larger program for the psychology of science, outlined already in his 1954 magnum opus Motivation and Personality, are analyzed not only in the context of Kuhn’s original ‘psychologizing’ attitude toward understanding the nature and development of science, but also in a broader historical, intellectual and social context.

In this paper, I compare Pierre-Simon Laplace's celebrated formulation of the principle of determinism in his 1814 Essai philosophique sur les probabilités with the formulation of the same principle offered by Roger Joseph Boscovich in his Theoria philosophiae naturalis, published 56 years earlier. This comparison discloses a striking general similarity between the two formulations of determinism as well as certain important differences. Regarding their similarities, both Boscovich's and Laplace's conceptions of determinism involve two mutually interdependent components—ontological and epistemic—and they are both intimately linked with the principles of causality and continuity. Regarding their differences, however, Boscovich's formulation of the principle of determinism turns out not only to be temporally prior to Laplace's but also—being founded on fewer metaphysical principles and more rooted in and elaborated by physical assumptions—to be more precise, complete and comprehensive than Laplace's somewhat parenthetical statement of the doctrine. A detailed analysis of these similarities and differences, so far missing in the literature on the history and philosophy of the concept of determinism, is the main goal of the present paper.

Aristotelian ideas have in the past been applied with mixed fortunes to quantum mechanics. One of the most persistent criticisms is that Aristotle’s notions of potentiality and actuality are burdened with a teleological character long ago abandoned in the natural sciences. Recently this criticism has been met with a model of the actualization of quantum potentialities in light of Aristotle’s doctrine of ‘spontaneous events’. This presumably restores the nowadays acceptable idea of efficient causation in place of Aristotle’s original doctrine of the ‘four causes’. In this article I challenge the model by arguing that when properly scrutinized Aristotle’s final cause poses no problems for an Aristotelian reading of quantum mechanics. Final causes in fact provide a better ontology for quantum mechanics than spontaneous causation. The idea of ‘spontaneity’ is unanalyzable and therefore of little use in quantum mechanics. In addition, it is ontologically sterile in the context of quantum measurement, as shown by a historical and conceptual review of the role of efficient causation in experimental physics.

In this paper a possible interpretative value of Aristotle’s fundamental ontological doctrine of potentiality and actuality is considered in the context of operationally undoubtedly the most successful but interpretatively still controversial theory of modern physics – quantum mechanics – especially regarding understanding the nature of the world, the phenomena of which it describes and predicts so successfully. In particular, beings of the atomic world are interpreted as real potential beings actualized by the measurement process in appropriate experimental arrangement, and the problem of actual beings of the atomic world is considered in the context of Aristotle’s threefold requirement for the priority of actuality over potentiality – in time, definition or knowledge, and substantiality.

Bošković’s distinction between two kinds of velocities – velocity in the first act, or potential velocity, and velocity in the second act, or actual velocity – is considered in respect to the concept of instantaneous velocity as defined by calculus differentialis. Contrary to the seeming inconsistency of Bošković’s duality of velocities and the concept of instantaneous velocity, due to a critical examination of logical and methodological foundations of the calculus, the article shows that the duality of velocities is consistent with the interpretations of instantaneous velocity given by Oresme, Euler and Maclaurin, as with the definition of instantaneous velocity according to the rigorous Cauchyan founding of the calculus. Bošković’s duality of velocities is also shown to be consistent with Aristotelian-scholastic doctrine of potentiality and actuality, especially in its domain related to the nature of continuous motion.

In this brief note, a concept of the ‘scientific worldview’ is examined. In particular, contrary to some of the most often misconceptions regarding the concept, it will be argued (1) that there cannot be a ‘scientific worldview’ in the traditional sense of a Weltanschauung if science is taken in its strictest sense, (2) that the remaining ontological and epistemic skeleton cannot be a single unified picture of the world (Weltbild), and (3) that the supposed ‘truth’ of these remaining pictures cannot be unambiguously grounded either in the methodology of science, although the methodology itself can be explanatory and predictively adequate and successful, or in the technological success that is associated with science.

In this paper, I analyse the hitherto largely ignored social and psychological roots of the philosophy of wholeness in David Bohm and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel was Bohm’s strongest philosophical influence throughout his mature intellectual life, however, as demonstrated in the paper, Bohm’s abhorrence of fragmentation and his affection for wholeness, which is prominently reflected in both his physics and his philosophy of science, was actually the realisation of specific social propensities and psychological determinants of his early emotional and intellectual development for which Hegel’s philosophy was a crucial rational catalyst later in his life. These social propensities and psychological determinants of Bohm’s early development are further demonstrated to be strikingly similar to those that also led the young Hegel to engage with the concept of wholeness throughout his life. The article also brings the biographical evidence of Bohm’s lifelong interest in Hegel and analyses the state of scholarship regarding his Hegelianism, the nature of Hegel’s philosophy as reflected in Bohm’s work, and the reasons for the somehow unexpected disciplinary neglect of the crucial influence of Hegel’s philosophy on Bohm.

In this paper a possible interpretative value of Aristotle’s fundamental ontological doctrine of potentiality and actuality is considered in the context of operationally undoubtedly the most successful but interpretatively still controversial theory of modern physics – quantum mechanics – especially regarding understanding the nature of the world, the phenomena of which it describes and predicts so successfully. In particular, beings of the atomic world are interpreted as real potential beings actualized by the measurement process in appropriate experimental arrangement, and the problem of actual beings of the atomic world is considered in the context of Aristotle’s threefold requirement for the priority of actuality over potentiality – in time, definition or knowledge, and substantiality.Dieser Artikel setzt sich mit der interpretativen Relevanz der ontologischen Theorie Aristoteles’ über die Möglichkeit und die Wirklichkeit für die Quantenmechanik auseinander, also für die auf der empirischen Ebene erfolgreichste Theorie innerhalb der modernen Physik, die jedoch noch immer kontrovers interpretiert wird. Dies gilt insbesondere im Hinblick auf das Verständnis der Natur der Atomwelt, deren Phänomene sie erfolgreich beschreibt. Die W esen der Atomwelt werden als reale Möglichkeitswesen begriffen, die in der experimentellen Situation aktualisiert werden, während das Problem der W irklichkeitswesen der Atomwelt im Kontext des von Aristoteles dreifach begründeten Vorrangs der W irklichkeit vor der Möglichkeit betrachtet wird – nämlich auf der Ebene der Zeit, auf der Ebene desBegriffs und auf der Ebene des Seins.U članku se promišlja možebitna interpretativna vrijednost Aristotelova temeljnog ontološkog nauka o možnosti i zbiljnosti  u kontekstu izračunski nesumnjivo najuspješnije, ali interpretativno još uvijek dvojbene teorije suvremene fizike – kvantne mehanike, posebno kada je riječ o razumijevanju naravi samoga atomnoga svijeta čije pojavnosti tako uspješno opisuje i predviđa. Poglavito, bića atomnoga svijeta poimaju se kao realna možna bića koja bivaju ozbiljena prema prigotku eksperimentalne situacije, a problem zbiljskih bića atomnoga svijeta promišljen je u kontekstu Aristotelova trojnog zahtjeva o prvotnosti zbiljnosti nad možnošću – prema vremenu, prema pojmu i prema bivstvu.