| Project/Area Number |
11610013
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Philosophy
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Nippon Medical School |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
NAGASHIMA Takashi Nippon Medical School, Department of Philosophy and Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Associate Professor, 医学部, 助教授 (40207999)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1999 – 2001
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2001)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,700,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000)
Fiscal Year 2000: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 1999: ¥1,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,200,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Brownianismus / Erregungstheorie / Erregbarkeit / Nosologie / Jaterie / Weltseele / Eschenmayer / natura naturans / Nosologie / Jaterie / ノソロギー / ブラウン説論争 / 化学過程 / 無限性論 / 刺激反応理論 / ブラウン説(論争) / 鉱物有機体 / 普遍的有機体 / 分極性 / 思弁的物理学 / ガルヴァニスムス |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In this third year I have developed my research project in following direction : Firstly the research on the debate around 1800 between Andreas Roschlaub and Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland based on the history of medicine. Secondly the research on F. W. J. Schelling and A. K. Eschenmayer.
With regard to the first research I collected materials of Roschlaub in the preceding year, in this year I have collected the materials of Hufeland, particularly his journal. Moreover I have gotten in contact with Japanese researcher on Hufeland. I have been lectured by him on the life of Hufeland, particularly on the relation of Hufeland with Kant and discussed with him.
In the research-process I have put materials on Roschlaub in order and investigated issues from the standpoint of Roschlaub's materials. I analyzed Rtfschlaub's papers on Brownianism in his Magazin zur Verkommnung der theoretischen und praktischen Heilkunde and drew up the list of Rdschlaub's literature. As the result of the research I have written a paper on him as researchnote.
With regard to the second research I have a paper on this theme. And I reexamined this theme and confirmed that the relation of Eschenmayer with Schelling can be analyzed from their correspondence, and yet that the issue of this relation and their debate to 1806 concentrated on the theme Naturphilosophie and its principle. Third debate is different from two preceding debates on the point that around 1809 the debate with Jacobi, his estimate of Spinozismus and the relation with Boehme grew central theme in the development of Schelling's thinking Therefore we must analyze this third debate in another form as two debates.
|
