Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:35:20.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Style as a Historical Category

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michael Otte
Michael Otte
Affiliation:
Institute for the Didactics of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In writing the history of science, the fluctuations between two meanings of the concept of style are of special interest: a simple or direct meaning of this concept referring to a means of expression and of presentation, and a philosophical interpretation of this term referring to “a world of objective spiritual order.” The last two chapters of this paper consider the perspective of the simple meaning of the concept, the first two chapters take the philosophical meaning as their starting point.

The concept of style in its general epistemological meaning emerges within a conceptual space that becomes effective as a totality at the end of the eighteenth century and which is built up of further notions such as: individual, genius, expression, symbol, education, creativity, and others.

The individual and, as believed, the nevertheless infinitely creative subject has taken the place that the concept of god had occupied within rationalism. But it is not only the subject as construction and will, but also the subject who reflected in a new way about the objective foundations of his conscience and tried to bring the object and the means of knowledge into a new relation.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1991 , pp. 233 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aragon, L. [1928] 1987. Traité du style. Translated as Stil, Abhandlung über den. Berlin: Bittermann.Google Scholar
Bäumler, A. [1923] 1967. Das Irrationalitätsproblem in der Ästhetik und Logik des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zur Kritik der Urteilskraft; reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Barck, K. 1986. Stildiskurs und Stilkritik in der Perspektive des französischen Surrealismus. In Gumbrecht and Pfeiffer 1986, 248–68.Google Scholar
Bense, M. 1949. Konturen einer Geistesgeschichte der Mathematik. Vol. 2: Die Mathematik in der Kunst. Hamburg: Claassen and Goverts.Google Scholar
Berg, E. 1982. Zwischen den Welten. Berlin: D. Reimer.Google Scholar
Bochner, S. 1969. Eclosion and Synthesis, New York: W.A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Bos, H. J. M. 1984. “Arguments on Motivation in the Rise and Decline of a Mathematical Theory: The ‘Construction of Equations,’ 1637-ca. 1750.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 30:331–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutroux, P. 1920. L'Idéal scientifique des mathématiciens. Paris.Google Scholar
Boyer, C. B. 1956. History of Analytic Geometry, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Breton, A. [1935] 1986. Die Manifeste des Surrealismus. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Bridgman, P. W. 1949. Dimensional Analysis. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassedy, S. 1988. “Mathematics, Relationalism, and the Rise of Modern Literary Aesthetics.’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 109–32.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. [1910] 1953. Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff. Berlin: Cassirer; English translation New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Castonguay, C. 1972. Meaning and Existence in Mathematics. Vienna.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chasles, M. [1839] 1982. Geschichte der Geometrie; reprint, Wiesbaden: Sändig.Google Scholar
Crocker, L. G. 1974. Diderot's Chaotic Order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dehn, M. 1983. “The Mentality of the Mathematician,” Math. Int. 5:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. 1954. The Geometry of René Descartes. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Diderot, D. 1876. Oeuvres complètes, Vol. 11. Paris: Garniers Frères.Google Scholar
Diderot, D. 1968. Ästhetische Schriften, 2 vols., edited by Bassenge, Friedrich Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, H. 1941. “Diderot's Conception of Genius.” Journal of the History of Ideas 2:151–82.Google Scholar
Ecco, U. 1977. Das offene Kunstwerk. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Echeverría, J. 1979. “L'Analyse géometrique de Grassmann et ses rapports avec la charactéristique géometrique de Leibniz.” Studia Leibnitiana 11:223–73.Google Scholar
Engel, F., ed. 1911. “Grassmanns Leben.” In: Grassmanns ges. math. und phys. Werke, Bd. III.2.: Leipzig.Google Scholar
Engfer, H.-J. 1982. Philosophie als Analysis. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt: Fromann.Google Scholar
Enriques, F. 1927. Zur Geschichte der Logik. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Field, J. V. and Gray, J. J. 1987. The Geometrical Work of Girard Desargues. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Forster, G., 1983, Forsters Werke, 2 vols. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag.Google Scholar
Fourier, J. 1822. Théorie analytique de la chaleur. Paris.Google Scholar
Gajdenko, P. P. 1986. “Antike Traditionen im Deutschen Idealismus.” In Studien zur Geschichte der westlichen Philosophien, edited by Motroschilova, N. V. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Goethe, J. W. 1965. Schriften zur Kunst. Zurich: Artemis.Google Scholar
Granger, G.-G. 1968. Essai d'une philosophie du style. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Gumbrecht, H. U. and Pfeiffer, K. L., eds. 1986. Stil. Geschichte und Funktionen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Diskurselements. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Halmos, P. 1981. “Applied Mathematics Is Bad Mathematics.” In Mathematics Tomorrow, edited by Steen, L. A., 9–29. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. n.d. Ästhetik, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1928. Logische Untersuchungen, 4th ed. Halle: Niemeyer, Vol 1.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. and Halle, M. 1980. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1956. Werke. Edited by Weischedel, W. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
King, G. H. 1986. Existenz, Denken, Stil: Perspektiven einer Grundbeziehung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristeller, P. O. 1983. “‘Creativity’ and ‘Tradition.’” Journal of the History of Ideas 105–13.Google Scholar
Lachterman, D. R. 1989. The Ethics of Geometry. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lenoir, T. 1979. “Descartes and the Geometrization of Thought.” Historia Mathematica 6:355–79.Google Scholar
Lepenies, W. 1978. Das Ende der Naturgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1989. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1979. Teleology Revisited. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. 1966, Werke. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1981. “The Early Nineteenth Century as a Period of Transitional Character.” Acta Hist. Rev. Nat. 13 (special issue): 159–61.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1984. “Ways of Knowing and Modes of Presentation,” CIEAEM 34ème rencontre, Orléans, 4169.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1988. “Stil und Methode.” In Technologische Zivilisation und die Transformation des Wissens, edited by Bammé, A., 117–56. Munich: Profil Verlag.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1989. “The Ideas of Hermann Grassmann in the Context of the Mathematica and Philosophical Tradition since Leibniz.” Historia Mathematica 16:1–35.Google Scholar
Otte, M. and Neumann, T. 1969. “Versuch Soziologie als wissenschaftliche Praxis zu betrachten.” In Thesen zur Kritik der Soziologie, edited by Schäfers, B., 130–50. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Poncelet, J. V. 1822–1862. Applications d'Analyse et de Géométrie, Vol. 1. Paris: Mallet-Bachelier.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, D. 1983. Der Stil Georg Forsters. Bonn: L. Röhrscheid.Google Scholar
Reck, H. U. 1986. “Stilnotate zwischen Lebensform, Subversion und Funktionsbegriff.” In Stilwandel, edited by Brock, B. and Reck, H. U., 100–151. Cologne: DuMont.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1985. Der Spiegel der Natur. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Scheible, H. 1988. Wahrheit und Subjekt. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. W. and Hegel, G. W. [1802–3] 1985. Kritisches Journal der Philosophie. Berlin: Verlag Das europäische Buch.Google Scholar
Schiller, F. n.d. Schillers Sämtliche Werke. 10 vols. Leipzig: Knaur.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. 1985. Die Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens in der deutschen Literatur, Philosophie und Politik 1750–1945, Vol. 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Spengler, O. 1918–1983. Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Munich: DTV-Verlag.Google Scholar
Staiger, E., ed. 1977. Der Briefwechsel Zwischen Schiller und Goethe. Frankfurt: Insel.Google Scholar
Stichweh, R. 1988. ‘Technologie Naturwissenschaft und die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Gemeinschaften.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 40:684–705.Google Scholar
Taton, R. 1899. L'Oeuvre mathématique de G. Desargues. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Valéry, Paul. 1960. Leonardo. Frankfurt: Insel.Google Scholar
Verdonk, J. J. 1966. Petrus Ramus en de Wiskunde. Assen: Van Gorcum & Co.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. M. 1972. Diderot. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, R. 1985. Die Gescnichte der Geometrischen Mechanik im 19. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar