Silvia Manzo

This article addresses historiographical questions about the concepts by which philosophy attempts to provide answers to the problems it poses. It argues for a view of philosophy as a historically dynamic intellectual practice that has no clear and fixed boundaries separating it from other disciplines. It proposes that the history of philosophy should be practiced as a kind of history that lies within, rather than outside, intellectual history. It shows that philosophical concepts are sometimes born and persist within philosophy, sometimes die without passing through philosophy, and sometimes come from or migrate to other disciplines. It also argues that the methodology of conceptual history can be helpful in the study of philosophical concepts. The article concludes that the history of philosophy is relevant in its own right and suggests how the new histories of philosophy written from postcolonial, global, and feminist perspectives are a clear example of this.

This book offers a uniquely comprehensive and authoritative account of the natural philosophy and of the conception of the laws of nature by Francis Bacon, one of the leading English reformers of natural science and an inspirer of the Scientific Revolution. The first part of the book focuses on the concepts central to his natural philosophy which are keys to understanding his account of the laws of nature, including his account of the creation of the universe and the several great stages of nature, of necessity and chance in natural events, the theory of matter and motion, and his cosmology. The second part examines four types of entities that explain the regularity of nature and shows how they form a system. This part also addresses a full interpretation of his controversial concept of forms, the relation of Bacon’s natural philosophy to his jurisprudence, provides a new insight into Bacon’s approach of induction, and discusses the relation between his speculative philosophy and his method. It is argued that Bacon has a unique view of the laws of nature which can be seen as a transition from ancient, medieval, and Renaissance approaches to early modern views. Francis Bacon’s Natural Philosophy and the Laws of Nature will be of special interest to Francis Bacon scholars, historians of Renaissance and early modern philosophy and science, historians of law, historians of theology, Renaissance scholars and early modern English studies scholars.

Elvira Virginia López defended her doctoral thesis, entitled “The Feminist Movement”, at the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina) in 1901. This article has two aims. On the one hand, to offer for the first time to English-speaking readers a general presentation of her figure, her context and the main theoretical cores of her thesis. On the other hand, to make a novel contribution to existing studies by analysing in detail what were the most important influences and sources of her views on feminism, equality and sexual difference. We will show that her knowledge of the discussions surrounding the so-called ‘woman question’ of her time was often indirect and based on the work of the jurists Carlo Francesco Gabba and Adolfo Posadas. Furthermore, we will point out that her positions on equality and sexual difference are fundamentally referenced in the perspective of the Ernest Legouvé and, to a lesser extent, in that of the Herbert Spencer, Concepción Arenal and Paola Lombroso.

This chapter analyzes and compares the positions on the mandate of female "intellectual" modesty found in two female authors: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1648-1695) and Concepción Gimeno de Flaquer (1850-1919). If we understand feminism as a system of ideas based on a rejection of the privilege of men as a group and the subordination of women as a group within a given society, both Sor Juana and Gimeno can be considered feminists. Their feminist positions take on particular characteristics that are understandable in their historical context. They have another point in common that makes it interesting to compare their positions. Although their lives took place in two historical moments separated by some two hundred years, both lived in the cultural environment of Hispanic American culture, a transatlantic culture where Spain and Latin America intersect. In their discourses, both present lists of illustrious women as a strategy to legitimize themselves as writers and as a resource to demonstrate the intellectual capacities of women through examples. Comparing the perspectives and experiences of both authors with regard to the relationship between wisdom and intellectual modesty will also allow us to contrast the situation of feminism in the Hispanic American sphere in those two historical moments, the early modern and the contemporary.

Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673) publicó libros de poemas, novelas y piezas teatrales, y fue una de las pioneras en su siglo al publicar libros de filosofía y de ciencia que firmó con su propio nombre. En sus textos encontramos conceptos, argumentos y críticas innovadores y alternativos sobre temas centrales para la filosofía de su tiempo: la naturaleza y la materia; el movimiento y la causalidad; el orden y las leyes de la naturaleza; la libertad; la mente humana y las capacidades cognitivas y afectivas de las especies no humanas; el valor de la diversidad de las especies y el respeto por ellas; el conocimiento, la percepción y el lenguaje; la verdad, la probabilidad y la ficción; la utopía, la organización social y la autoridad política; las capacidades y los derechos de las mujeres; etc. Este bagaje vasto y diverso tiene mucho para decir a las discusiones filosóficas actuales sobre el materialismo, la mente humana y no humana, la animalidad, la ética medioambiental, los derechos y la condición de las mujeres, el conocimiento y el lenguaje, la libertad, lo artificial y lo natural, entre otros. En este libro nos proponemos recuperar sus ideas filosóficas, sus intuiciones y sus argumentos; tratar de entenderlos y descubrir sus contradicciones, sus problemas, sus desafíos. Recalar en todo lo que nos brindan para pensar nuestros problemas filosóficos actuales, ofreciendo una introducción breve y general a su filosofía que no se adentrará en las discusiones sofisticadas de los especialistas.

The first part of this paper will provide a reconstruction of Francis Bacon’s interpretation of Academic scepticism, Pyrrhonism, and Dogmatism, and its sources throughout his large corpus. It shall also analyze Bacon’s approach against the background of his intellectual milieu, looking particularly at Renaissance readings of scepticism as developed by Guillaume Salluste du Bartas, Pierre de la Primaudaye, Fulke Greville, and John Davies. It shall show that although Bacon made more references to Academic than to Pyrrhonian Scepticism, like most of his contemporaries, he often misrepresented and mixed the doctrinal components of both currents. The second part of the paper shall offer a complete chronological survey of Bacon’s assessment of scepticism throughout his writings. Following the lead of previous studies by other scholars, I shall support the view that, while he approved of the state of doubt and the suspension of judgment as a provisional necessary stage in the pursuit of knowledge, he rejected the notion of acatalepsia. To this received reading, I shall add the suggestion that Bacon’s criticism of acatalepsia ultimately depends on his view of the historical conditions that surround human nature. I deal with this last point in the third part of the paper, where I shall argue that Bacon’s evaluation of scepticism relied on his adoption of a Protestant and Augustinian view of human nature that informed his overall interpretation of the history of humanity and nature, including the sceptical schools.

This chapter explores the representations of the Renaissance developed by two prominent intellectuals in Argentine philosophy during the first three decades of the twentieth century: José Ingenieros and Alejandro Korn. Their work is contrasted with that of a nineteenth- century Spanish source that served as the basis for their own performances, Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo. It will highlight how these authors articulated the ideas and ideals of the Renaissance with the construction of a national thought and culture. For the Argentines it was important to understand how the Renaissance was perceived in Spain, the country that set the course for the predominant ideas in Argentina in the colonial period between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Menéndez Pelayo devoted special attention to the Renaissance because there he finds the highest and most genuine moment of the Spanish intellectual history. All three thinkers are interested in weighing the differences between the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation, and their impact in the construction of the national culture of their countries, both Spanish and Argentine. Regardless of their philosophical, political and religious differences, the historical narratives of these authors used the Renaissance ideologically, and made of it a conceptual motive, an inspiring model containing the values to be embodied by the culture of their nations, above all the value of “free inquiry”.

Este capítulo se propone explorar cómo el replanteo de las causas finales en la ciencia natural suscitado por la Revolución Científica impactó en el desarrollo del materialismo y el ateísmo del Siglo de las luces. Con el surgimiento de la ciencia moderna en Europa, en el siglo XVII ocurrieron cambios sustantivos en la concepción de la causalidad. Ciertos estudios pioneros sobre el tema, sostenían que la nueva ciencia anulaba las causas finales y establecía que todos los fenómenos naturales debían explicarse en términos de materia y movimiento (Burtt, 1952:98‒99; Schmitt, 1983:5). Más tarde, otros especialistas —con argumentos más sólidos y pruebas más convincentes— mostraron que la causalidad final no fue anulada por completo; siguió presente en muchos autores, aunque ya no como parte indispensable de la explicación científica, sino como un componente ontológico de la naturaleza (Osler, 1996 y 2001). Ahora bien, ¿qué sucedió con las causas finales en el siglo XVIII europeo, época de profundas turbulencias políticas y controversias filosóficas, en la cual el materialismo, el ateísmo y el deísmo fueron ganando terreno? Para hacer un recorte dentro de la vasta variedad de posiciones existentes en este escenario, comenzaremos por repasar la posición sobre las causas finales de Francis Bacon (1561‒1626), quien fue una figura muy influyente en la Ilustración. 2 Luego, analizaremos la recepción de esa posición por parte de algunos autores británicos (D. Stewart, S. Parker) y franceses en el siglo XVIII (D'Alembert, Naigeon, Diderot, Cabanis).

Este artículo analiza la posición de Margaret Cavendish sobre la realidad y la ficción en los sueños y su papel dentro del escepticismo moderado de su filosofía. Cavendish sostiene que no hay distinción entre las representaciones que se tienen en los sueños y en la vigilia, no considera que la diferencia entre la realidad y la ficción sea tajante o relevante; de modo que, si bien promueve un discurso filosófico que articula la razón que busca conocer la realidad y la fantasía (fancy) que construye ficciones, considera que solo las fantasías poéticas “elevadas” son competentes para la con-strucción de este discurso.

En estas páginas se publican mis respuestas a una encuesta incluida en el libro Galfione, María Carla y Moine, Facundo José, eds., La inquietud por la filosofía. Ensayos sobre canon, historia y crítica, Córdoba, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, 2023, pp. 178-182. Las preguntas de la encuesta son las siguientes: 1. ¿Cree que tiene sentido hacer hoy historia de la filosofía, como objeto de investigación y/o enseñanza? ¿Por qué y cómo?; 2. ¿Pueden ayudar las reflexiones de Foucault para esa historia, como "caja de Herramientas"? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo?; 3. ¿Qué hacer con el canon filosófico? ¿Hay que conservarlo, transmitirlo, inculcarlo?; 4. ¿Cómo entiende la crítica en tanto actividad reflexiva que atraviesa el discurso filosófico? ¿Encuentra alguna potencialidad o productividad en pensar la crítica de cara al canon filosófico?; 5. ¿Cree conveniente, a la hora de pensar el pasado y el presente del saber filosófico, inscribirlo en un presente, en determinadas instituciones, en un marco que lo excede histórica y discursivamente? ¿Qué entiende que resulta del saber filosóficoposicionado en esos marcos?; 6. ¿Cuál cree que es el grado de persistencia del pasado o del canon al pensar la filosofía en su exigente vínculo con el presente? O, de otro modo, ¿tiene la historia de la filosofía y su práctica algún lugar en la constitución del presente?

This chapter will explore the reception of Condillac in Argentina from the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, focusing on two cases. First, the reception by nineteenth-century professors of idéologie (Juan Crisóstomo Lafinur, Juan Manuel Fernández de Agüero, Luis José de la Peña, and Diego Alcorta) that was mediated by the interpretations of Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Pierre Jean Cabanis, and Pierre Laromiguière. Second, the reception in the early twentieth century by José Ingenieros, whose narrative was conditioned by his own political and philosophical agenda. In each case, we can identify different receptions that must be interpreted not only in light of the philosophical concerns of the authors who made them but also in light of the wider cultural and political context in which they emerged. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Condillac was received as a philosopher who integrated the new philosophical canon that would replace the Scholastic canon that had been imposed by the colonial regime. In the early twentieth century, Ingenieros inserted Condillac into a narrative that, starting with Bacon and Locke, culminated in positivism, a current that, in his view, offered the best framework to make Argentina shine in the concert of civilized nations.

In this chapter we will argue, firstly, that Bacon’s engages in a pecu-liar form of mathematization of nature that develops a quali-quantitative methodology of measurement. Secondly, we will show that medicine is one of the disciplines where that dual way of measurement is practiced. In the first section of the chapter, we will expose the ontology involved in the Baconian proposal of measurement of nature. The second section will address the place that mixed mathematics occupies in Bacon’s scheme of scientific branches and will suggest that a proper advancement of medicine can generate a new branch of mixed mathematics. The next section will reconstruct Bacon’s approach to measurement and expose its quali-quantitative import. In the last section, we will show some examples of medicine in which this quali-quantitative measurement is applied.

This article discusses Margaret Cavendish's position on reality and fiction in dreams and her role within the moderate skepticism of her philosophy. While Cavendish argues that there is no distinction between dream-like and waking depictions, she does not consider the difference between fact and fiction to be sharp or relevant. We will argue that, although Cavendish promotes a philosophical discourse that articulates reason –that seeks to know reality— and fancy —which constructs fictions—, considers that only "elevated" poetic fantasies are competent for the construction of this discourse.

In presenting self-preservation as the most general law of nature, set at the summit of the structure of the natural world, Francis Bacon characterized the universal appe- tite for self-preservation as an innate instinct which, in the case of living beings, is primarily associated with the emotion of fear. Bacon’s philosophy offers several tech- niques of self-care to manage the fear of accidents of fortune from which the existence and well-being of the self is under constant threat. This article reconstructs Bacon’s treatment of divinatory arts and their contributions to self-care. We will explore how he adopts traditional divinatory arts and reforms them: oneirocritics, physiognomy, and astrology. We will contend that Bacon’s approach to divinatory arts as techniques for self-care and the management of fortune shows some salient points shared with his natural philosophy: in both cases, the approach is hermeneutical, with the goal of exerting human power. With regard both to nature and to fortune, however, our power to modify the state of things extends only so far. The range of decisions we can make is not unlimited but encompasses only what is “in our power,” that is, what depends on us.

This paper explores how a set of observations on the weight of lead were interpreted and assessed between the 1540s and the 1630s across three different interconnecting disciplines: medicine, mineralogy and chemistry. The epistemic import of these discussions will be demonstrated by showing: 1) the changing role and articulation of experience and quantification in the investigation of metals; and 2) the notions associated with weight in different disciplinary frameworks. In medicine and mineralogy, weight was not considered as a specific subject of inquiry in itself, but as a “sign” indicating other relevant properties of metals. In contrast, the chemistry tradition was increasingly concerned with the specific investigation of weight as a property of matter, as seen in the debates that took place in the “chemical revolution.” In addition, this study will reveal the versatility, polysemy, and parallel purposes of the recourse to experiential knowledge in different contexts, where the same “facts” operate within different disciplines.

The aim of this paper is to examine how much Hume knew about astronomy, in order to understand the reasons for his acceptance of Copernicanism. My contention is that Hume’s positive reception of the Copernican system arises at least from the importance that he gives to three features that he attributes to the Copernican system: beauty, simplicity and uniformity. I also give some evidence that Hume had first-hand knowledge of some sections of Galileo’s Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano (1632), where the “sole proofs” of the Copernican system are said to be found.

¿Qué entendemos hoy por canon en el ámbito de la filosofía? El sentido más habitual de esta palabra remite a una lista o catálogo de autores y de textos que se consideran fundamentales con respecto a un determinado recorte de la filosofía y a veces a la filosofía en su totalidad. Este sentido de canon, por extensión, suele tener una connotación de norma, precepto o regla, en la medida en que la lista de obras o autores es juzgada como necesaria para alcanzar un conocimiento o dominio de la filosofía. Está ligado con la formación de los filósofos en el marco de una institución de enseñanza. El propósito de este trabajo es deconstruir este sentido de canon, considerando sus elementos como piezas de un modelo que puede armarse, desarmarse y rearmarse. Antes de esta deconstrucción, será necesario hablar del lugar donde se construye y delinear cuáles son sus rasgos definitorios, incluyendo sus modos de construcción y reproducción. A ello estará dedicada la primera sección de este texto. Las tres secciones que siguen se concentrarán en cada de las piezas básicas que constituyen los cánones filosóficos: los autores, las obras y los temas.

La concepción según la cual la naturaleza es un todo ordenado donde prevalece la regularidad en las propiedades y procesos que caracterizan a las distintas especies recorre el pensamiento occidental desde la filosofía antigua griega hasta nuestros días. Diferentes teorías científicas sobre innumerables aspectos y objetos de la naturaleza elaboradas a lo largo de los siglos, e incluso teorías contrapuestas entre sí, asumieron el orden y la regularidad del mundo como un supuesto innombrado, como un a priori histórico sobre el cual se sustentaron. Existen varias vías posibles de examinar históricamente la construcción y la evolución de una concepción tan vasta y duradera. La que aquí propongo consiste en estudiar la concepción del orden a partir de analizar la excepción y la anomalía que lo alteran o subvierten. En este caso me dedicaré a estudiar las perspectivas aristotélicas, tardo-escolásticas y baconianas sobre los monstruos, también conocidos como “fenómenos preternaturales”.

Lo personal es político. Revisito la potente frase de Carol Hanish (1970) que sigue resonando en las luchas y discursos feministas desde que se hiciera pública a comienzos de 1970. Me permito reversionarla, con gran libertad, para marcar el pulso de este texto y contar, a partir de mi relación con la filosofía, cómo lo personal pasó a ser político en el interés por conocer las filósofas modernas e interpelar y rearmar el canon filosófico. Con ello, los y las invito a reflexionar sobre la perspectiva de género en la historiografía filosófica, las formas de construcción del canon y sus repercusiones en la enseñanza de la filosofía.

Es muy habitual que se presenten los grandes lineamientos de la filosofía moderna en el marco del paradigma epistemológico y apelando a la distinción de dos corrientes filosóficas fundamentales, el empirismo y el racionalismo. Se trata de categorías analíticas construidas para interpretar y caracterizar retrospectivamente a ciertos filósofos de la modernidad. Pero no fueron términos ni conceptos utilizados por los actores mismos6. John Locke, George Berkeley y David Hume no se llamaban a sí mismos empiristas, ni René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza y Gottfried W. Leibniz se autodenominaban racionalistas. En este capítulo, profundizaremos algunos puntos esbozados en el capítulo anterior. En primer lugar, expondremos las definiciones que han recibido el empirismo y el racionalismo dentro del paradigma epistemológico, que si bien ha sido criticado y redefinido en las últimas décadas, sigue siendo sostenido en la actualidad. En esa misma sección, analizaremos en qué medida las figuras del canon moderno establecido por el paradigma sostienen o no las tesis racionalistas y empiristas que les atribuyen esas definiciones tradicionales. Finalmente, resumiremos algunas críticas que ha recibido la narrativa tradicional y presentaremos una propuesta de resignificación de ambas categorías que nos parece más atinada.

Las narraciones que presentan la filosofía moderna como un periodo particular de la historia de la filosofía, al igual que las narraciones sobre otros periodos de la historia de la filosofía, son deudoras tanto de determinadas concepciones de la filosofía como de ciertas concepciones de su historia y de la historia. La mirada hacia el pasado filosófico se sitúa en un presente que, implícitamente o no, delimita el campo de lo que es considerado como filosofía y de lo propiamente filosófico, delimitación que implica una selección de las manifestaciones que caracterizan la filosofía, como, por ejemplo, sus autores, sus problemas, sus escenarios y sus formas discursivas. Dicho de otra manera, al narrar una historia de la filosofía se determinan de alguna manera quiénes son filósofes, qué temas son filosóficos, dónde se hace filosofía y cómo se escribe filosofía, entre otras cosas. A su vez, la narración histórica de las expresiones de ese pasado asume ciertas posiciones acerca de la historicidad de lo filosófico, de sus relaciones con los diferentes ámbitos de su emergencia, de sus métodos de investigación y de las modalidades discursivas deseables para esta narración.

ABSTRACT Francis Bacon and René Descartes have traditionally been presented as leaders of opposed philosophical currents. However, more and more studies show important continuities between their philosophies. This article explores one of them: their perspectives on medicine. The dominion over nature and the instinct for self-preservation are the central elements of the theoretical framework within which they inserted their assessments of medicine. Medicine is valued as the most outstanding discipline for its benefits for the care of the human being. Departing from this start-point, one finds further coincidences about the status, practice, and reform of medicine.

This paper will analyze three historical cases (Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei and Margaret Cavendish) that exemplify the complexity of the interaction between science and religion in the Scientific Revolution and confirm the interpretation of J. H. Brooke, according to which, in this historical context –rather than a separation- a differentiation took hold between them. We will hold that although these authors agreed in proposing the separation of science and religion as an ideal, each in their own way made an articulation between the two that in the long run prevented a complete separation. This articulation was due to both epistemic and extra-epistemic reasons and manifests a tension that was characteristic of the Scientific Revolution.

The historiographical narrative describing early modern European philosophy as the confrontation between rationalism and empiricism and its overcoming through the Kantian synthesis had a huge spread in Argentina. This article investigates the genesis of this traditional account in the universities of Córdoba, Buenos Aires and La Plata between 1780 and 1920. It offers an introduction concerning the formation of this narrative in Europe and a survey of the teaching of early modern philosophy in Argentina during that period. It concludes that, although some of its components are found during the nineteenth century, it was only in the second decade of the twentieth century that the traditional narrative was formulated in its entirety, in parallel with the introduction of Kantianism in Argentine. However, the construction of this narrative is not merely explained by this fact but also by the weight that the history of philosophy gained in the syllabus as part of the demands involved in the shaping of the academic philosophical field. Finally, this paper suggests ways to reconfigure and renew the canon.

This paper will address the nineteenth-century reception of Bacon as an exponent of materialism in Joseph de Maistre and Karl Marx. I will argue that Bacon’s philosophy is “quasi-materialist.” The materialist components of his philosophy were noticed by de Maistre and Marx, who, in addition, pointed out a Baconian materialist heritage. Their construction of Bacon’s figure as the leader of a materialist lineage ascribed to his philosophy a revolutionary import that was contrary to Bacon’s actual leanings. This contrast shows how different the contexts were within which materialism was conceived and valued across the centuries, and how far philosophical and scientific discourses may be transformed by their receptions, to the point that in many cases they could hardly be embraced by the authors of these discourses.

Monsters as a category seem omnipresent in early modern natural philosophy, in what one might call a “long” early modern period stretching from the Renaissance to the late eighteenth century, when the science of teratology emerges. We no longer use this term to refer to developmental anomalies (whether a two-headed calf, an individual suffering from microcephaly or Proteus syndrome) or to “freak occurrences” like Mary Toft’s supposedly giving birth to a litter of rabbits, in Surrey in the early eighteenth-century (Todd 1995). But the term itself has a rich semantic history, coming from the Latin verb monstrare (itself deriving from monere, to remind, warn, advise), “to show,” from which we also get words like “monitor,” “admonish,” “monument” and “premonition”; hence there are proverbs like, in French, le monstre est ce qui montre, difficult to render in English: “the monsters is that which shows.” Scholars have discussed how this “monstrative” dimension of the monster is in fact twofold: on the one hand, and most awkwardly, the monster is an individual who is “pointed at,” who is shown; on the other hand, the monster is a sign, a portent, an omen, and in that sense “shows us” something (on the complex semantic history of the term across Indo-European languages see Ochsner 2005). The latter dimension persists in naturalized form in the early modern period when authors like Bacon, Fontenelle or William Hunter insist that monsters (or anomalies) can show us something of the workings of Nature.