Olivier Perru

The article examines a number of links between the metaphorical uses of the concept of metamorphosis in literature and the various changes of the meaning of the concept that took place at the beginning of the modern scientific age between the 17th and 19th centuries, a period during which the notion of metamorphosis resurfaced in conflict with evolutionist thinking. We present the extent to which the concept of animal metamorphosis, the object of multiple redefinitions over the course of this historical period, became the vector of a very strong metaphorical meaning, which emerged in the literature of the period and survives to this day in certain children’s storybooks belonging to what we term the genre of “realistic fiction”. We intend, from a pedagogical standpoint, to identify which specific attributes of these metaphors exist in those storybooks, and to gauge the extent to which those attributes contradict the scientific characteristics and fictional representations of the concept of metamorphosis.

At first, Georges Canguilhem’s philosophy is a philosophy of medicine recognizing the main contribution of biological knowledge to medicine. However, this philosophy also questions the nature of life. Life involves biological processes, but life is also normativity. In this paper, we question the normativity and the epistemological history in Canguilhem’s works to understand their relevance for current scientific questions. According to Canguilhem, the epistemological history of the life sciences concerns an activity of constitution of (biological) scientific disciplines. The relevance of Canguilhem is the fact that a historian of science has not only to restore a history of the scientific theories or a history of the development of the sciences in context, but he also has to explore the relationship and the limits between life science and its context in the process of genesis and scientific elaboration. Scientific work is a vital activity of the human being, the history of science is the history of this axiological activity, and this implies a philosophical approach. In this paper, we propose that the history of ecology may give a valuable example of a scientific elaboration from various elements and from diverse skills: ideologies that announce or extend a scientific construction also affect this discipline.

RÉSUMÉ Enraciné dans la philosophie politique au XVIIIe siècle français, le concept d’association occupe une place essentielle dans la philosophie de Saint-Simon. Chez cet auteur, l’association a pour objet la production, elle présuppose une organisation intégrée et constitue l’unité de la société. La société organique de Saint-Simon évolue selon un principe de complexification vers un grand but industriel commun. Fourier place aussi l’association comme condition de la coopération, mais elle en est le moteur. L’organisation de l’investissement psychologique dans l’association créerait continuellement la société fouriériste. De Saint-Simon, Marx semble retenir l’idée d’association créant l’organisme productif; il emprunte à Fourier la production d’une société nouvelle collectivisant toutes les dimensions personnelles. Mais l’association devient chez Marx le fruit de la dialectique de l’histoire, dont le moment négatif rend l’organisme collectif à lui-même et lui confère une individualité nouvelle. L’association chez Marx s’impose comme une unité. Chacun participe nécessairement à cette réalité qui doit l’affranchir des limites de sa propre individualité. ABSTRACT Rooted in the french philosophy of the XVIIIth french century, the concept of association holds an essential place in the philosophy of Saint-Simon. In this author, association concerns production, it is generated by an integrated organization and forms unity in the society. In Saint-Simon, the organized society evolves according to a principle of complexification towards a great industrial aim. Fourier equally sets association before cooperation, considering it as a real driving force. According to Fourier, psychological commitment in association should make dynamic any cooperation. Marx possibly deducted from Saint-Simon the idea that association should create the collective organism. He borrowed from Fourier the production of a new society, getting collective the whole human person. But, association in Marx's thought becomes the result of the dialectic of history. A negative phase in this dialectic gives the collective organisme to itself back and confers on it a new individuality. In Marx, association is essential as a unity. Each one necessary takes part in this reality which will make him free from the limits of his own individuality.

Analyser les origines de l'apparition du concept de zoonite comme unité d'organisation segmentaire en zoologie demande de se placer dans le contexte de la première moitié du dix-neuvième siècle, plus spécifiquement vers 1826-1839. Si les origines de la problématique remontent à Goethe, d'une part, à des botanistes tels que de Candolle d'autre part, la thèse de Moquin-Tandon sur les dédoublements chez les végétaux (1826) est une étape essentielle. Les hypothèses de multiplication et de diversification des organes arrangés selon une symétrie, préside aussi à ses recherches sur les Hirusinées (1827). Le zoonite est une unité organique élémentaire pouvant se démultiplier et il est structuré symétriquement. Mais, ce qui le caractérise est sa composition lui conférant une autonomie. En 1832, Dugès regardera le rapport entre zoonite et organisme total sous l'angle de la conformité organique. Il déduit de ses observations les lois de multiplicité des organismes, de disposition, de modification et de coalescence. Cette dernière loi deviendra primordiale chez Dugès en 1838 pour expliquer l'évolution de l'être composé ainsi que la croissance embryonnaire. Mais, le zoonitisme des années 1830 ne constitue pas une théorie scientifique, même s'il servira ultérieurement de référence, en particulier dans la physiologie animale d'Edwards. To analyse the origins of the appearance of the zoonite concept as a unit of segmentary organisation in zoology requires positioning oneself in the context of the first half of the nineteenth century, more specifically in the years 1826-1839. If the origins of the problem go back to Goethe, on the one hand, and to botanists such as de Candolle on the other, the thesis of Moquin-Tandon on the splitting of plants (1826) is an essential step. The hypotheses of multiplication and diversification of organs arranged according to a symmetry, also presides over his research on the Hirudinées (1827). The zoonite is an elementary organic unit which can multiple itself and is structured symmetrically. But what characterises it is that its composition confers on it a certain autonomy. In 1832, Dugès regarded the connection between zoonite and total organism from the angle of organic conformity. He deduced from his observations the laws of multiplicity of organisms, of disposition, of modification and of coalescence. This last law would become vital to Dugès in 1838 for explaining the evolution of the composed being as well as embryonic development. But zoonitism in the 1830s did not constitute a scientific theory, even if it would ultimately serve as a reference, in particular for the animal physiology of Edwards

Our paper focuses on the theory of bud’s development in some works of the french botanist Aubert A. du Petit Thonars (1758–1831). From 1792 to 1801, he was a botanist traveller, visiting Tristan d’Acugna, Le Cap, Madagascar and L’Isle Bourbon, and he observed the growth of tropical trees. He concluded that, on the bark, many buds produced some bundles of fibres. He repeated his observations and experiments with European trees in France. For him, the bud’s activity produces fibres. Collections of fibres cause a organic unity. Du Petit Thouars carried on with the studies of Duhamel du Monceau about wood and bark. He discovered that these two vegetal tissues were independent, but grew from the same matter, which was called “cambium” by Duhamel du Monceau in 1758. Our botanist’s opinions and observations were discussed and his point of view was sternly combatted by the French physiologist Brisseau-Mirbel, but it was taken up again by Moquin-Tandon. Finally, the cellular theory and discoveries of vegetal tissues proved Brisseau-Mirbel right about building up of plants: they are made up of cells but they are not a composition of fibres.